In reference to the thread created by cloudgoddess; https://www.nairaland.com/2914888/much-needed-explanation-evolution

I want to make my submission

In her thread, She started by writing that she’s been studying evolution for 3 years and is presently taking biology courses in the U.S (appealing to the interests of the average black man) and so she must be right even though she gives zero evidence.
She also did well in fixing basic biological facts to trick unsuspecting readers into absorbing the content of her article while subtly advising the readers to disregard the opinions of religious leaders and at the same time pointing out the “threats” posed by religion.
Without wasting time, let’s move to the points she made.

cloudgoddess:

- Cells are the fundamental units of life and all of those cells contain genetic material.

Part of the basic biological facts I spoke about earlier.

cloudgoddess:

- The collection of genetic material each organism posseses changes slightly from generation to generation because of mutations and genetic mixing via sex or other reproductive means.

You think of mutation as advantageous.
Do you even know the meaning of mutation? Mutation is more of a disadvantage, a liability, not a benefit. You must be a die-hard fan of the x-men mutant series.
Mutations are pathological mistakes and not helpful changes in the genetic code. C.P. Martin of McGill University in Montreal wrote, “Mutation is a pathological process which has had little or nothing to do with evolution”
Professor Martin’s investigations revealed that mutations are overwhelmingly negative and never creative.
He observed that an apparently beneficial mutation was likely only a correction of a previously deleterious one, similar to punching a man with a dislocated shoulder and inadvertently putting it back into place.

Science writer Richard Milton explains the problem: “The results of such copying errors are tragically familiar. In body cells, faulty replication shows itself as cancer. Sunlight’s mutagenic [mutation inducing] Power causes skin cancer; the cigarette’s mutagenic power causes lung cancer.
In sexual cells, faulty reproduction of whole chromosome number 21 results in a child with Down’s syndrome”

Yet you wanna have us believe that such genetic mistakes are not only not harmful to the afflicted creature but are helpful in the long run .

Professor Phillip Johnson quoted, “To suppose that such a random event as mutation could reconstruct even a single
complex organ like a liver or kidney is about as reasonable as to suppose that an improved watch can be designed by throwing an old one against a wall”

Zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé, who studied mutation extensively, both inside his laboratory and in nature. In all sorts of living things, from bacteria to plants and animals. He has observed that mutations do not take succeeding generations further and further from their starting point. Instead, the changes are like the flight of a butterfly in a green house, which travels for miles without moving more than a few feet from its starting point. He described Darwinism as a theory that does not work, because it clashes with so many experimental findings.

There are invisible but firmly fixed boundaries that mutations can never cross . . . He insists that mutations are only trivial changes; they are merely the result of slightly altered genes, whereas ‘creative evolution demands the genesis of new ones’”

Embarrassingly for evolutionists, mutation is also not the answer. If anything, the self-correcting system to eliminate mutations shows that a great intelligence was at work when the overall genetic system was
designed so that random mutations would not destroy the beneficial genes. Ironically, mutation shows the opposite of what evolutionism teaches: In real life, random mutation is the villain and not the hero.

cloudgoddess:

- The genetic traits that contribute to or do not harm an organism's survival in its specific environment get passed on to succeeding generations. Traits that are deleterious to survival eventually eliminated from the gene pool of that population.

According to cloudgoddess and the evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation.
Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.
As depicted by one of the diagrams in her post. Life started from simple celled organisms like bacteria, eukaryotes, archea all the way to multicelled organisms (mammals) e.t.c.
Now If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can’t we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

Let’s take it a step further. If human beings are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet a human infant is utterly helpless not for days but for up to several years after birth. A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival. If evolution is true and humanity is the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true? Obviously, cloudgoddess has overlooked such an obvious flaw.

cloudgoddess:
Over many, many generations this process slowly creates new - members of a population become so far removed genetically, that they can no longer reproduce with one another.

If this is in any way true, the ancestral and transitional fossils of millions of allegedly “evolved” species today will be an unquestionable proof. But what do the fossil records show? We’ll get to that soon enough.

cloudgoddess:

This explains why we see organisms that are extremely well-matched to their present environments and biological niches - and why the "well-matched" organisms of the past are not the same "well-matched" organisms of the present.

Really people??, Are humans “extremely well-matched” to their present environment without the aid of foreign and synthetic materials? At least, compared to the “apes” we allegedly evolved from??

cloudgoddess:
This explains why habitat destruction or tampering of any kind can be so harmful to wildlife.

Well, Simple Biology. (A Simple wildlife conservation principle)

cloudgoddess:
This explains why bacterial populations grown for thousands of generations in a lab became more and more genetically adapted to their environment each generation (experiment done by Dr. Richard E. Lenski, Michigan State University).

Lol!! studies like this, that find small variations within a species over time, such as in the size of finch beaks or the coloration of moths, are sometimes used to try to prove Darwinian evolution. But such studies are sometimes flawed. And even if valid, they provide no such proof.

Adaptation within a species is called microevolution. It is the same phenomenon at work when the average height of men and women increased by several inches in the Western world over the course of the 1900s.
Better health and nutrition played a large part in producing larger-sized people. In the same way, microevolution is at work when breeders produce varieties ranging from Chihuahuas to Great Danes within the one species Canis familiaris the domestic dog.
These examples show, as in the rest of nature, that all species do have a margin of change available within their genetic pool to adapt to conditions. This trait is found in man, who can adapt to freezing weather, as the Eskimos do, or to the broiling sun in the desert, as bedouins have done. But bedouins and Eskimos are still human beings, and if they changed environments again, eventually their offspring would also go through minor changes to better adapt to their new environment.

What has never been scientifically demonstrated in spite of many examples of wishful thinking is macroevolution, or the change from one distinct species to another. Dogs have never evolved into birds or human beings as evolution suggests.

Professor Phillip Johnson understood this and said: “Critics of evolutionary theory are well aware of the standard examples of microevolution, including dog breeding and the cyclical variations that have been seen in things like finch beaks and moth populations. The difference is that we interpret these observations as examples of the capacity of dogs and finches to vary within limits, not of a process capable of creating dogs and finches, much less the main groups of plants and animals, in the first place . . .
“As any creationist (and many evolutionists) would see the matter, making the case for ‘evolution’ as a general theory of life’s history requires a lot more than merely citing examples of small-scale variation. It requires showing how extremely complex biological structures can be built up from simple beginnings by natural processes, without the need for input or guidance from a supernatural Creator”


Thus some cited examples of evolution at work are really no proof at all of anything at all much less how any of these creatures moths, dogs, finches or human beings came to exist.

cloudgoddess:

It is a confirmed fact (to the extent that humanity is able to confirm anything) that evolution is happening and has happened for all of life, that is not a matter of opinion. The very large amount of evidence we have does not point in any other direction. The Theory of Evolution as it stands today is simply humanity's latest and most refined description of that process and how it operates.

Thank you for reading.

Are you really sure you know which direction the evidence points at or is this just a “go with the flow” thing, you know, band-wagon??


Well Thanks, But as usual, no justice whatsoever done to evolution, just your favourite “its not merely a theory, just accept it” talks. Johnydon22 was right even though I don’t believe he really meant it. Your post belongs in nairaland’s science section

I will like to quickly point some simple facts about fossils, one area out of the many oddities that defy evolution.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin himself struggled with the the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions and he wrote the following
“Why,” he asked, “if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous,” he wrote. “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 serious objection which can be urged against the theory”


Darwin was confident that fossil discoveries would provide clear and convincing evidence that his conjectures were correct. His theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
More than a million species are alive today. For all of these species to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions, if not hundreds of millions, of intermediate forms(transitional forms) gradually evolving into other species.
And it was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and human beings that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin’s theory. The gaps were enormous.
Science writer Richard Milton notes that the missing links “included every part of the animal kingdom: from whelks to whales and from bacteria to bactrian camels. Darwin and his successors envisaged a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through fishes, to amphibians—living partly in the sea and partly on land—and hence on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans.

Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. But, since he thought his theory obviously was the correct explanation for the earth’s many and varied forms of life, he and others thought it only a matter of time before fossilized missing links would be found to fill in the many gaps.
His answer for the lack of fossil evidence to support his theory was that scientists hadn’t looked long enough and hadn’t looked in the right places. Eventually they would find the predicted fossil remains that would prove his view.

As evidenced in his book; “The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record,”
He was convinced that later explorations and discoveries would fill in the abundant gaps where the transitional species on which his theory was based were missing. But now, a century and a half later, after literally hundreds of thousands of fossil plants and animals have been discovered and cataloged.

Fast forward to many years later, David Raup, a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist (a scientist who studies fossils) at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum had this to say about Darwins predicted missing links.
"In general, these have not been found— yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks”

Niles Eldredge, curator in the department of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is another vigorous supporter of evolution. But he finds himself forced to admit that the fossil record fails to support evolutionary view.
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long,” he writes. “It seems never to happen.
“When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often
with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else".

In short, after an immense worldwide search by geologists and paleontologists, the “missing links” Darwin predicted would be found to bolster his theory are still missing.

The late Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps today’s best-known popular writer on evolution. An ardent evolutionist, he collaborated with Professor Eldredge in proposing alternatives to the traditional view of Darwinism. Like Eldredge, he recognized that the fossil record fundamentally conflicted with Darwin’s idea of gradualism.
“The history of most fossil species,” he wrote, “includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism [gradual evolution from one species to another]:
“[1] Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional [evolutionary] change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological [anatomical or structural] 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’”

Please note that evolutionists would have us believe that the homo sapien species evolved all at once or at the same speed, at the same time, all over the world.

Francis Hitching, member of the Prehistoric Society and the Society for Physical Research, also sees problems in using the fossil record to support Darwinism.
[b]“There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world’s museums,” he writes. “This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. Given the known rates of evolutionary turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil species have lived than have been discovered. But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.
“When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that . . . “There ought to be cabinets full of intermediates—indeed, one would expect the fossils to blend so gently into one another that it would be difficult to tell where the invertebrates ended and the vertebrates began.
But this isn’t the case. Instead, groups of well-defined, easily classifiable fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full-formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way.
And before them are maddening, illogical gaps where their ancestors should be”[/b]

Michael Denton, a medical doctor and biological researcher, explains that “of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates [mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians] 261 or 79.1 percent have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8 percent”. In other words, almost 88 percent of the varieties of mammals, reptiles and amphibians populating earth have been found in the fossil record. How many transitional forms, then, have been found?
“. . . Although each of these classes [fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and primates] is well represented in the fossil record, as of yet no one has discovered a fossil creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and another species. Not a single undisputed ‘missing link’ has been found in all the exposed rocks of the Earth’s crust despite the most careful and extensive searches”

If Darwin’s theory were true, transitional creatures such as invertebrates with partially developed backbones, fish with rudimentary legs, reptiles with primitive wings and innumerable creatures with semievolved anatomical features should be the rule, scattered throughout the fossil strata. But they are simply nonexistent.


Charles Darwin’s theories certainly took the world by storm, but he seemed to have had second thoughts in some respects. In his later years he reflected on what he had started this way: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them”

So could man create a religion with no god? The widespread acceptance of evolution shows that people have done just that.
The Bible teaches us that God created man. Evolution teaches us that man created God.
Which is the myth—God or evolution?

Louis Bounoure, director of France’s Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless”

Professor Bounoure, though right about evolution, was wrong about one thing. Rather than being useless, evolution is quite useful if one wants to reject the idea of God.
As Dr. Thomas Woodward states, “Many scholars working in the ID [intelligent design] community have pointed out a key fact: Darwinism may not entail atheism, but it appears certain that to some extent, atheism entails Darwinism”

The Picture below is a fish called the coelacanth. It is so ancient. It is over 300 million years of age any was thought to be extint 70 million years ago. It was a prime candidate for evolutionists as the fish that crawled on land because its fossils has transitional limblike features.
Evolutionists were utterly embarrassed when it was caught in a fisherman’s net in south Africa in 1938. Unsuprisingly 300 million years till date, it still retains its wonderfully created features.


I would conclude with this quote from Phillip Johnson, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, he has written several books about the evolution debate. He approaches the evidence for and against evolution as though evaluating a legal case.

“Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory; it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story . . .”

source; www.ucg.org

Below are the submissions of some luminaries in science about evolution and creation.

[b]“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design . . .
“And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The
better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based . . .
“To be forced to believe only one conclusion that everything in the universe happened by chance would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?
“Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .
“What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?”[/b]- Former NASA director Wernher von Braun, who has been called the father of the American
space program, for his thoughts on the origin of the universe, life and the human race.



“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume [The Origin of Species] on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived.”
—Charles Darwin himself

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Into his tiniest creatures, God has placed extraordinary properties that turn them into agents of destruction of dead matter.”
“A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him.” —Louis Pasteur, French scientist, developer of the pasteurization process for milk and of vaccines for anthrax, chicken cholera and rabies

“The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate.” “The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it . . . Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.” —Paul Lemoine, Former director of the Paris Natural History Museum, president of the Geological Society of France and editor of Encyclopedie Francaise


“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”
—Sir Ernst Chain, coholder of a Nobel Prize for isolating and purifying penicillin, director of Rome’s International
Research Center for Chemical Microbiology, professor of biochemistry at Imperial College, University of London


[b]“Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator.”
“It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.”
“Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang.
For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator . . . In the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the Creator.”[/b] —Dr. Wernher von Braun, NASA director and father of the American space program


“For me the fundamental answers about the meaning of life come not from science, but from a consideration of
the origins of our uniquely human sense of right and wrong and from the historical record of Christ’s life on earth.” —Francis Collins, former atheist and currently director of the National Human Genome Research Institute


“I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary creature.” —Antony Flew, emeritus professor of philosophy
at Reading University, formerly one of the world’s leading proponents of atheism.


cc: Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall

This is so brilliant bro winner01 ... I hope this makes frontpage with the title " Christianity's rebuttal against the theory of evolution" ...I hope lalaticlala sees this the way we see it

KingEbukasBlog:
This is so brilliant bro winner01 ... I hope this makes frontpage with the title " Christianity's rebuttal against the theory of evolution" ...I hope lalaticlala sees this the way we see it

Thanks bro. I hope so too.

winner01:
I will like to quickly point some simple facts about fossils, one area out of the many oddities that defy evolution.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin himself struggled with the the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions and he wrote the following
“Why,” he asked, “if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous,” he wrote. “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 serious objection which can be urged against the theory”


Darwin was confident that fossil discoveries would provide clear and convincing evidence that his conjectures were correct. His theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
More than a million species are alive today. For all of these species to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions, if not hundreds of millions, of intermediate forms(transitional forms) gradually evolving into other species.
And it was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and human beings that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin’s theory. The gaps were enormous.
Science writer Richard Milton notes that the missing links “included every part of the animal kingdom: from whelks to whales and from bacteria to bactrian camels. Darwin and his successors envisaged a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through fishes, to amphibians—living partly in the sea and partly on land—and hence on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans.

Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. But, since he thought his theory obviously was the correct explanation for the earth’s many and varied forms of life, he and others thought it only a matter of time before fossilized missing links would be found to fill in the many gaps.
His answer for the lack of fossil evidence to support his theory was that scientists hadn’t looked long enough and hadn’t looked in the right places. Eventually they would find the predicted fossil remains that would prove his view.

As evidenced in his book; “The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record,”
He was convinced that later explorations and discoveries would fill in the abundant gaps where the transitional species on which his theory was based were missing. But now, a century and a half later, after literally hundreds of thousands of fossil plants and animals have been discovered and cataloged.

Fast forward to many years later, David Raup, a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist (a scientist who studies fossils) at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum had this to say about Darwins predicted missing links.
"In general, these have not been found— yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks”

Niles Eldredge, curator in the department of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is another vigorous supporter of evolution. But he finds himself forced to admit that the fossil record fails to support evolutionary view.
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long,” he writes. “It seems never to happen.
“When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often
with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else".

In short, after an immense worldwide search by geologists and paleontologists, the “missing links” Darwin predicted would be found to bolster his theory are still missing.

The late Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps today’s best-known popular writer on evolution. An ardent evolutionist, he collaborated with Professor Eldredge in proposing alternatives to the traditional view of Darwinism. Like Eldredge, he recognized that the fossil record fundamentally conflicted with Darwin’s idea of gradualism.
“The history of most fossil species,” he wrote, “includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism [gradual evolution from one species to another]:
“[1] Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional [evolutionary] change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological [anatomical or structural] 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’”

Please note that evolutionists would have us believe that the homo sapien species evolved all at once or at the same speed, at the same time, all over the world.

Francis Hitching, member of the Prehistoric Society and the Society for Physical Research, also sees problems in using the fossil record to support Darwinism.
[b]“There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world’s museums,” he writes. “This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. Given the known rates of evolutionary turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil species have lived than have been discovered. But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.
“When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that . . . “There ought to be cabinets full of intermediates—indeed, one would expect the fossils to blend so gently into one another that it would be difficult to tell where the invertebrates ended and the vertebrates began.
But this isn’t the case. Instead, groups of well-defined, easily classifiable fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full-formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way.
And before them are maddening, illogical gaps where their ancestors should be”[/b]

Michael Denton, a medical doctor and biological researcher, explains that “of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates [mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians] 261 or 79.1 percent have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8 percent”. In other words, almost 88 percent of the varieties of mammals, reptiles and amphibians populating earth have been found in the fossil record. How many transitional forms, then, have been found?
“. . . Although each of these classes [fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and primates] is well represented in the fossil record, as of yet no one has discovered a fossil creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and another species. Not a single undisputed ‘missing link’ has been found in all the exposed rocks of the Earth’s crust despite the most careful and extensive searches”

If Darwin’s theory were true, transitional creatures such as invertebrates with partially developed backbones, fish with rudimentary legs, reptiles with primitive wings and innumerable creatures with semievolved anatomical features should be the rule, scattered throughout the fossil strata. But they are simply nonexistent.


Charles Darwin’s theories certainly took the world by storm, but he seemed to have had second thoughts in some respects. In his later years he reflected on what he had started this way: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them”

So could man create a religion with no god? The widespread acceptance of evolution shows that people have done just that.
The Bible teaches us that God created man. Evolution teaches us that man created God.
Which is the myth—God or evolution?

Louis Bounoure, director of France’s Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless”

Professor Bounoure, though right about evolution, was wrong about one thing. Rather than being useless, evolution is quite useful if one wants to reject the idea of God.
As Dr. Thomas Woodward states, “Many scholars working in the ID [intelligent design] community have pointed out a key fact: Darwinism may not entail atheism, but it appears certain that to some extent, atheism entails Darwinism”

The Picture below is a fish called the coelacanth. It is so ancient. It is over 300 million years of age any was thought to be extint 70 million years ago. It was a prime candidate for evolutionists as the fish that crawled on land because its fossils has transitional limblike features.
Evolutionists were utterly embarrassed when it was caught in a fisherman’s net in south Africa in 1938. Unsuprisingly 300 million years till date, it still retains its wonderfully created features.


I would conclude with this quote from Phillip Johnson, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, he has written several books about the evolution debate. He approaches the evidence for and against evolution as though evaluating a legal case.

“Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory; it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story . . .”

source; www.ucg.org

One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
These animals sound wild, but the fossil record — which is far from complete — is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
Mammals, including us
It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
Dinosaurs and birds
The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features — teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids — ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours.
Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
Fish, frogs, turtles
Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor.
Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.

help urself here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
and
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

^^^^
All these fossils mentioned are recorded in their original and fully developed forms and obviously would retain their forms if alive today. The coelacanth i used earlier is a good example.
As for the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Cloudgoddess once referred me to a site, national geography precicely, which stated clearly that Apes or chimpanzees or whatever did not evolve into humans and that there is no missing link between humans and the ape-like.
And actually the same applies for virtually all the fossils you pasted here. Take the tiktaalik for instance,
In 2006, Dr Jonathan Sarfati considered the evidence and pointed out that Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. He likened the Tiktaalik claims to the hopes evolutionists held for the fin of the then supposedly extinct coelacanth.

Shaun Doyle took a look at these claims:
“Many features needed for terrestrial existence are simply not present in Tiktaalik. Because of this, the most important changes in the braincase are pushed to another link that is truly missing. Moreover, it could not have been preparing for the transition to land because evolution is blind; it cannot foresee what will evolve in the future especially when the raw material for evolutionary change is supposed to come from random mutations.”

In 2010, a discovery in Poland shook the claims about Tiktaalik’s place in the evolutionary timeframe. It was of tetrapod footprints dated (using evolutionary assumptions) at 397 million years, 18 million years older than Tiktaalik.

Dr Tas Walker wrote:
“If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be”.

BBC also report about the footprints:
“But Tiktaalik lived about 375 million years ago; and although there are slightly older transition fossils, the Zachelmie Quarry tetrapods break the neat and simple timeline.”

But even despite being disproved by the timeline already, neil shubin (tiktaalik's advocate) continued his storytelling about the tiktaalik's pelvis,desperately trying to prove that it was a tetrapod rather than a fish.
In 2013, Shubin wrote a paper which admitted that “scientists have yet to find a Tiktaalik hind fin bone, or any remains that might shed light on the origins of toes,” without realizing how vital those elements are if the story is true in the first place.
Shubin’s response is revealing: “The hind fin of Tiktaalik is tantalisingly incomplete.”

He has already stated in the paper that, whatever the result, Tiktaalik’s pelvis shows that its pelvic fin couldn’t bear weight on land! So just like the rest of the storytelling on this specimen and other specimens over the years, the evolutionists have talked the talk but they still can’t make Tiktaalik walk.

In other words, tiktaalik just like the coelacanth were just fishes until desperation and fantasy crept into the minds of humans.

If you co-owned an engine such as wikipedia, I can be sure that you would also give evolution a much more convincing outlook than it already is. Its the same with Jimmy wales, an atheist and the Co-Founder of Wikipedia. There are proofs of Wikipedia's bias on certain topics such as intelligent design, abortion, homosexuality and several others.

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

Lastly the founder of Wikipedia doesn't write all the articles you see there. stop crying foul and learn

winner01:
^^^^
If you co-owned an engine such as wikipedia, I can be sure that you would also give evolution a much more convincing outlook than it already is. Its the same with Jimmy wales, an atheist and the Co-Founder of Wikipedia. There are proofs of Wikipedia's bias on certain topics such as intelligent design, abortion, homosexuality and several others.

Bro even online dictionaries owned by atheists describe God as a super human . intelligent design which has been argued upon is now being described as pseudo-science .

Wikipedia has always been obstinate about The Big Bang being bereft of a first cause but now that phrase has been edited . The fight against Religion - Christianity - is real . Atheists always accuse Christians to be intolerant but now they are showing their real colours - pathetic despicable bigots

^^^
Thanks for being outdated. Yes, It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. But Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. Scientists have observed that there is a clear difference between vertebrate flight and avian flight.
It is you that needs to learn and stop desperately looking for a crutch because you cant bear the reality of the alternative. It is you that will have us believe that dinosaurs turned into birds. A phenomenon which has never been directly observed throught life. I refuse to go back and forth with you because your desperation is clear. Ill simply refer you to one of cloudgoddess favourite sites to read up how the archaeooteryx has gradually become an embarrasment for evolutionists.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

You can also learn from here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

The founder of wikipedia dosent write articles and i made no such claims either. But he definately controls what wikipedia tilts to support and its obvious when it comes to sensitive topics such as this.

KingEbukasBlog:


Bro even online dictionaries owned by atheists describe God as a super human . intelligent design which has been argued upon is now being described as pseudo-science .

Wikipedia has always been obstinate about The Big Bang being bereft of a first cause but now that phrase has been edited . The fight against Religion - Christianity - is real . Atheists always accuse Christians to be intolerant but now they are showing their real colours - pathetic despicable bigots

@ Bolded. Of course, Wikipedia proclaims its equality on one hand and then subtly promotes atheism on the other hand. The reason is not far fetched. The owner has a vested interest. It takes an open mind to see this.
Im not suprised at the bigotry being displayed here. Its the usual reaction from people who do not want their official creation story to be debunked by the same science they desperately cling to for relevance.

The picture below is one of the earliest forms of life found in the fossil record. Its called a trilobite. Its is an extraordinarily complex organism, far from the primitive forms predicted by darwinism.

winner01:
^^^
Thanks for being outdated. Yes, It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. But Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. Scientists have observed that there is a clear difference between vertebrate flight and avian flight.
It is you that needs to learn and stop desperately looking for a crutch because you cant bear the reality of the alternative. It is you that will have us believe that dinosaurs turned into birds. A phenomenon which has never been directly observed throught life. I refuse to go back and forth with you because your desperation is clear. Ill simply refer you to one of cloudgoddess favourite sites to read up how the archaeooteryx has gradually become an embarrasment for evolutionists.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

You can also learn from here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

The founder of wikipedia dosent write articles and i made no such claims either. But he definately controls what wikipedia tilts to support and its obvious when it comes to sensitive topics such as this.

OK

Evolutionists are now claiming that a dolphin captured with two little extra fins near the tail is proof that dolphins evolved from four-footed animals related to the dog.

"Experts believe that the dolphin's ancestor was a dog-like creature which roamed the earth many millions of years ago. And now the extraordinary discovery of a bottlenosed dolphin with an extra set of flippers has provided living proof of the theory. At first glance it looks like any other of its kind. But closer inspection reveals a rogue set of rear fins. Each the size of a human hand, the fins are thought to be the remains of a pair of hind legs, adding to evidence that dolphins once walked on all fours."

Look closely at the picture below. This is clearly nonsense. First, evolutionists tell us that land animals evolved from sea creatures. Now they are trying a new approach, claiming sea creatures evolved from land animals. Dog are still dogs, but they claim that some of the dogs long ago evolved into dolphins. These "scientists" claim the dolphin evolved from the dog while the rest of the dogs didn't evolved into anything. They simply remained dogs.

These "scientists" are not scientists. No scientific evidence exists for these evolutionary theories. This claim is an attempt to brainwash the naive. Don't be fooled by these claims. Evolutionists typically use words like "may have evolved" or ""probably evolved" because they lack scientific proof. The truth is obvious here.
This is simply one of the many species of dolphins.

The "evolution" fraud did not begin today. Many years back, The Nebraska Man hoax began when geologist Harold Cook, conducting an archaeological dig, unearthed a molar tooth, a single, lone molar tooth in the state of Nebraska. Harold Cook retained the tooth in his own possession for five years, before he turned it over to Henry Fairfield Osborn. Believe it or not, this lone molar tooth was the ENTIRE “evidence” constituting “Nebraska Man.”

An entire ape-man and “missing link” find was proclaimed hastily within a single month by Osborn before the National Academy of Science on the basis of a single tooth! Three years later, William King Gregory completed the excavation in Nebraska, but there was an embarrassing problem. Unexpectedly, the full skeleton of Nebraska Man was still there in the ground. Nebraska Man, it turned out, was actually Nebraska PIG, a Miocene peccary! The whole skeleton, minus the one molar already found, was unearthed. Cook, Matthew and Osborn had already documented their knowledge of and familiarity with Miocene peccary molars 8 years before the singular tooth was found, including noting that they could be mistaken for anthropoid molars “by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries”! This realization may very well have been the inspiration for the hoax. Cook, Matthew and Osborn already WERE “familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries.” Why, then, had they proclaimed that a pig molar, of which they were familiar and knowledgeable, was proof of an ape-man, a missing link?

They knew better but made an ape-man out of a pig molar anyway. This whole scenario can hardly be anything other than deliberate deception. The question must be asked, If Harold Cook truly believed the molar he had in his possession was an anthropoid molar, would he not have forwarded it to Osborn immediately instead of waiting for five years? Would Cook have actually sat on such a momentous discovery saying nothing about it for five years?

Henry Osborn, was at that time, the world’s leading expert on mammalian molar teeth, examined the tooth handed over to him by Cook and proceeded almost immediately to announce to the world that proof of a missing link, an anthropoid ape, an ape-man, in North America had been found. Osborn, signifying authoritative identification, gave an official name to the presumed original owner of the tooth, “Hesperopithecus haroldcookii,” meaning “Harold Cook’s Ape of the Western World,” in honor of Harold Cook, its finder.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, as the leading expert on the subject of mammalian molar teeth, had already written and published a full-length book on the subject, “Evolution of Mammalian Molar Teeth,”. The book is 237 pages of commentary and a virtual catalogue of diagrams of mammalian molars. If anyone knew mammalian molars, it was Osborn.

Well as usual, the hoax gained so much acceptance among some in the science community and other desperate folks seeking for a non-existent creation alternative.

Below is the picture of the Nebraska man that was desperately formed by the discovery of just a tooth, which eventually turned out to be the tooth of a pig. A picture which was shamelessly shown to the world as proof of a missing link, an anthropoid ape, an ape-man.

Here's another possible headache for those who advocate the evolutionary theory.

A team of Polish and Brazilian scientists recently published a study in the journal "Scientific Reports" where they discussed a puzzling discovery: fossilised silk cocoons that may date back some 295 million years ago or during the Early Permian era.

The scientists were particularly intrigued by how the insects called caddisflies were able to survive and protect themselves from decay just by the use of their larval cases.

"Caddisflies (Trichoptera) are small, cosmopolitan insects closely related to the Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies)," the researchers stated in their report: "Most caddisflies construct protective cases during their larval development."

The scientists said that the larval cases are "primarily composed of whitish, transversely arranged and tightly joined together thin strips."

"In some instances, however, the cases may be completely disintegrated in the form of isolated strips chaotically scattered on the bedding plane. The strips form the main part of the cases and presumably represent the fossilised remnants of the silk material used by the larvae for case construction," they stated.

Brian Thomas, Science Writer for ICR, meanwhile, highlighted the fact that this discovery poses a major challenge to the evolutionary theory.

Thomas particularly stressed how the caddisflies seemingly were able to be exempted from evolution for millions and millions of years.

"It looks like ancient caddisfly larvae took exactly the same approach to underwater home construction as their living versions. If so, then how did these creatures manage to resist evolutionary changes over 295 million supposed years?" Thomas wrote in his article published by the ICR this week.

He further pointed out that based on earlier decay experiments, proteins "do not last one million years."

"If future research confirms these white caddisfly larvae casings as original silk proteins, then scientists set on conventional age assignments will face a new challenge explaining how actual strands of delicate silk could last almost 300 million years," he added.

Nice one op!!! *thumbs up* The truth can never be diluted. If indeed evolution theory were true,then life itself would be meaningless...for all the evolutionists ,when they die their brain,with its ability to think,reason and write all the balderdash they've been postulating would simply be an accident of nature. #Iamnoaccident
Evolutionist William B. Provice says :". What we have learnt about the evolutionary process has enormous implications for us ,affecting our sense of meaning in life. " His conclusion? "I can see no cosmic or ultimate meaning in human life."
To them life is meaningless...but to me its purposeful.

Stop posting crap here Winner01. Describing mutation as a mistake is WRONG. Have you been in a genetics class before? I don't mean O level Anyway.

Meanwhile...

Clap for yourself, you have dismantled evolution and it is fake...

Where is your nobel prize?

donnffd:
Clap for yourself, you have dismantled evolution and it is fake...

Where is your nobel prize?

Its not surprising that you didnt request for the nobel prize of the lady (cloudgodess) whose thread I countered.


Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design. In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."


Charles Darwin’s theories certainly took the world by storm, but he seemed to have had second thoughts in some respects. In his later years he reflected on what he had started this way: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them”

Evolution is important:- for those who cannot bear the reality of a Creator, for those who desperately want atheism to be true.

DeSepiero:
Stop posting crap here Winner01. Describing mutation as a mistake is WRONG. Have you been in a genetics class before? I don't mean O level Anyway.

Meanwhile...

I'm a scientist, I've probably had a better look into the available evidence than you. I'm done with my first and second degrees. Ill be getting my doctorate soon by the grace of God.

If thousands/millions of sub-humans evolved into thousands/millions of humans, the fossils will be abundant everywhere and unquestionable.

Evolution could not possibly have happened on mars now, could it?

winner01:
Its not surprising that you didnt request for the nobel prize of the lady (cloudgodess) whose thread I countered.

She wasnt bringing out new ideas, she was educating the uneducated and the misinformed.

You on the other hand wants to overturn 150years of established science on its head, when you successfully do, i am so certain you would get a Noble prize,but until then, keep up the good work, more grace to your elbows...

Evolution is important:- for those who cannot bear the reality of a Creator, for those who desperately want atheism to be true.

how do you explain the sheer amount of Religious people who accept reality for what it is?

donnffd:


She wasnt bringing out new ideas, she was educating the uneducated and the misinformed.

You on the other hand wants to overturn 150years of established science on its head, when you successfully do, i am so certain you would get a Noble prize,but until then, keep up the good work, more grace to your elbows...






how do you explain the sheer amount of Religious people who accept reality for what it is?

She was only indoctrinating people. If she wanted to be fair, she will post links supporting and refuting evolutions.

I'm not overturning anything, you cant overturn something that has not been cemented in the first place.

The amount of people who accept something does not validate its truth. If majority of canadians accept bestiality (which has recently been legalized in canada) as normal. Does that make bestiality any less sick?.

Truth my friend, is not confirmed by majority vote even though it might temporarily be suppressed by it. The missing links couldnt have all been transported to mars.

winner01:
I'm a scientist, I've probably had a better look into the available evidence than you. I'm done with my first and second degrees. Ill be getting my doctorate soon by the grace of God.

If thousands/millions of sub-humans evolved into thousands/millions of humans, the fossils will be abundant everywhere and unquestionable.

Evolution could not possibly have happened on mars now, could it?

Good you're a scientist. Please get the concise definition and concept of Mutation right. Its not always an error or mistake that results in a less better organism than its predecessor. You should have known that from A level genetics, if you're in the biological sciences.

I don't counter your view on your second point that abundance of fossils should confirm the claim of Mans evolutionary trend. I am not a paleontologist and I am not willing to research on that.

As an expert in molecular genomics and bioinformatics, instead of investigate about the past, I am rather interested in solving present societal problems through my research.

Goodluck on your Doctoral program.
I'd like to know your discipline if you don't mind.

@winner01 ... i fancy your logical explanation and well proven rebuttals... Its enough to give cloudgoddess a tormenting insomnia. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with desepiero.... Mutation is never a mistake. Because Evolutionist see mutation as yardstick to prove their lies should not mean that we should discard it in the trash can. Though it has its own demerits but it can never create an entirely new specie. That alone is enough to nail Evolutionists to the wall. I wish you the best in your various endeavors.

Cheers.

Next Time Try To Summarize What U Wanna Copy And Paste

.

KingEbukasBlog:
This is so brilliant bro winner01 ... I hope this makes frontpage with the title " Christianity's rebuttal against the theory of evolution" ...I hope lalaticlala sees this the way we see it

Christianity's what?

As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums. If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links".

Charles Darwin wrote: "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."

However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."

Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...". As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”




Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.


Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…".

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:

"Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 140 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50.


One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:

"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...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study




So what does the fossil record quote?

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record is in favour of special creation". - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England)

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131

Autumn foliage is one of the many of examples of beauty in God's creation.


One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved.

Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through.

Professor Phillip Johnson noted about this: "What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."

Evolutionists will have us believe that a frog became a prince a fish became a man



And for more than a century, we've been waiting to observe at least the most basic of this magical process. Observation is key in science.






I mean nothing turned to bacteria which turned to fish which eventually turned to man. (Of course after a very long time).




And this happened for millions of species that exist today?




Well, what can we say but the truth. This is another picture of a 320 million year old fossil



I can't but agree with Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research, who said;
"Evolution really is a fairytale for adults", a fairytale for people who cant bear the reality of the alternative.

Evolutionists will have us believe that simple organisms e.g bacteria can evolve into a fully formed human being, given enough time.

Based on this belief "scientific finding", I strongly believe that a fully assembled toyota vehicle has far better chances of evolving into a super charged self controlled robotic machine that can perform unimaginable functions.

But could fish really evolve into something other than another fish . Maybe a thinner or smaller fish under stress conditions.
To say a fish "evolved" into a man with a mind and conscience simply because it had enough time is quite interesting.

And they try hard to let us see how a frog can become a prince a fish can become a man, and then coat it with the prestige of science.
It's only funny that I was taught this fairytale in junior classes and other children may be to.

Anything can serve as a substitute for God, for someone who cant bear the reality of a Creator.

Thank Heavens for paleontologists and the clarity the fossil record. Lets have a look at another piece of evidence from the fossil record.