Transistions vs Stasis

8/16/09

Dear Lagomort,

I have wanted to write back many times but time and priorities have prevented me. My apologies.

To answer you question about scientists that lie and cover up the truth: there certainly are people in the scientific community who are simply wrong in their interpretations of the facts. Most are honest and sincere, but a minority are outright lying. People who don't flow with the mainstream are ostracized which creates pressure to conform.

Ramaphithecus
Ramaphithecus is a good example. This supposed ape man was accepted for over 50 years in universities from 1915 to 1968 until Evolutionist themselves rejected it as a transition. The same could be said for many other supposed transitional creatures that were accepted for a time and then rejected by Evolutionists. If only they would have listened to Creationists, they would have saved themselves many years of delusion.

Concerning quoting Evolutionists: I did not misquote four Evolutionists in a row in my last message. They all expressed the same fact, namely transitional forms which they expected to find were missing. Why else did Gould come up with Punctuated Equilibrium in the first place? The links that Gould talked about were few and highly controversial even among his fellow Evolutionists.
Steven J. Gould, Harvard
You quoted Gould as stating, "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." The essence of his statement is species are the links between higher taxonomic groups, and this does not hold water at all. Darwin certainly would disagree. Darwin said, "Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory."

Just because people can be misquoted does not automatically discount all quotations. Each quotation must be evaluated on its own merit. If you want to get into the details of the validity of each quoted statement, I would respect that.

You also wrote, "Patterson was not stating there are no transitional fossils. He was stating, due to the extensive nature of the branching bush of life, exact ancestry is not possible to establish." Not being able to identify exact ancestry was not his primary point. Finding no transitions was his main point. Not knowing ultimate ancestry is simply derived from not having evidence of transitions. For example Patterson said, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them." The essence of his statement was that Science does not support Gradualism (or Gradual Evolution). His final statement is, "What is the evidence for continuity?' you would have to say, 'There isn't any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.' " What does he mean if not the obvious. This was his honest assessment against his own desire for the contrary. A powerful statement from the man who wrote the text book titled, "Evolution".

That said, we fully agree as to examining the details of scientific propositions. You want to look at the transitional requirements for a reptile to become a mammal. Let's do it.

Unicellular to Multi-cellular life
But first let me remind you that you have not responded back to me on the giant gap between the single cell life forms and multi-cell life forms. Precambrian rock layers have single cellular life, and suddenly Cambrian layers have an explosion of diverse multicellular life forms. How do you explain one celled creatures changing by chance into creatures with multiple thousands of cells? How do you explain reproduction from asexual single-cell division to sexual reproduction by chance? Where is the evidence, fossil or living?


REPTILES and MAMMALS
Reptiles produce reptiles. Mammals produce mammals. In essence, Kind produces kind or Like produces like. This is science. It is observable, repeatable, and testable. Yet the claim is that kinds change into different kinds.

For a reptile to turn into a mammal, first of all, you have to get two brand new mammals who have mutated identically, yet are of the opposite sex, in the same location, at the same time. And seeing how these are freshly mutated from reptiles, they must also both be fertile. This is significant because it is common for mutations to also include sterility. All this would be true not only for the first two mammals, but also for each step-by-step change along the way.

SOME ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES
The mandible or lower jaw of a reptile is made of 12 bones, 6 on each side. Reptiles also have quadrate bones, one on each side, which make the joints between the the lower jaw and the upper jaw. This bone is not found in mammals. Mammals have 2 mandible bones: one on each side. A transition would require a perfectly good reptile jaw to slowly loose 10 mandibular bones and 2 quadrate bones and still maintain its ability to chew. Any creature with a 50/50 reptile/mammal jaw would starve to death less than a month after coming into the world. It has to be a strong fully functional jaw or death.

Somewhere in the transitional phase from reptile to mammal we would get a creature that would not be able to chew his food. Ligament and tendon attachment points, bone shapes, bone count, jaw fulcrum positions, articulation points, etc. can't be changed without adversely effecting the creatures ability to eat. Reptile jaws are strong and functional. Mammal jaws are strong and functional. But to transform from one to the other would require going from a strong phase, though a weakening phase, through an incapable-of-use phase, back through a weak phase, and finally to a new strong phase. This is simply an impossible chain of events.

And do we find any fossils of reptiles with some other number of bones in its jaw? No. All reptiles, fossil and living, have the same compliment of bones in their mandible. I take that back. Their may cartoon illustrations of reptiles that may have a different number.

A reptile has one ear bone and a mammal has 3. The transitions would have to go from one ear bone to 3 without loosing the ability to hear.

Somewhere in the transitional phase from reptile to mammal we would get a deaf creature that could not hear a predator getting ready to pounce on him from behind. And if not him, then his mate, because they both must survive to maturity at the same time.

You are asking me to believe one kind of hearing apparatus transformed into a different one without going through deafness. And you are asking me to believe that this same chance process transformed a 12 bone reptile jaw into a 2 bone mammal jaw and the creature always had a fully functional bite. You have a lot of faith.


I see stasis in the fossils and in living creatures. Science doesn't show a "tree of life" every branching into new creatures. Science shows a field of individual plants branching only within a distinct kind. Dogs are very diverse, yet represent a single kind. The same could be said for cats, pigeons, crickets, apple trees, etc.

God made kinds to produce after their own kind. That's what I believe, and it fits the observed facts well: genetic homeostasis and limited variation.

From Lagomort: "Creationist are Misquoting Evolutionists"

7/22/09 about 10:00 PM

From Lagomort:

Re: Scientist who Reject Evolution

So your basic argument is to make claim that the scientists are lying and covering up the truth?

You do realize the scientists have said over and over again that they are being misquoted? Do you realize they are saying this, yes, or no? For example, Gould has been said to say that there are no transitionals by creationists numerous times, but when asked about this his response was:

""Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." "

Now, since scientists can be misquoted, and they claim they are being so, shouldn't we, instead of arguing over who said what, discuss the actual fossil record and what it shows? Does this make sense, yes or no?

Now, if you think we should discuss the facts, let me ask, what does our current understanding of biology dictate what the expected osteology (bones) of an animal, transitional between, "reptiles," and mammal, should look like? Please give details so we can inspect the validity of the claim, and then the fossil record to see if such examples can be found.

Patterson's Statement on No Transtions

Evolution,

by Colin Patterson

To Lagomort,

Thanks for keeping this dialogue going. I like your spirit.

Yes, I am saying there are NO evolutionary links between animal kinds. As for Colin Patterson (Curator of the London Natural History Museum and Author of the book, Evolution), he emphatically stated that ALL the evolutionary links are missing. Below in bold print is a section from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma, where you can see Patterson's statement; there is plenty of context so you can judge for yourself.

Sincerely

Garth Guessman

Darwin's Enigma,
by Luther Sunderland

Before interviewing Dr. Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History.²² In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents and a letter was written to Dr. Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defense of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job.

In his interview several months later, Dr. Patterson was asked to elaborate, "You stated in your letter that there are no transitions. Do you know of any good ones?" He replied, "No, I don't, not that I would try to support. No." Throughout the interview he denied having transitional fossil candidates for each specific gap between the major different groups. He said that there are kinds of change in forms taken in isolation but there are none of these sequences that people like to build up. Putting it as a question, he said, "If you ask, 'What is the evidence for continuity?' you would have to say, 'There isn't any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.' "

__________________________________

Not only Patterson knows this, Darwin, Dawkins, and many others say the same thing: there are no transitional creatures anywhere: living or fossilized.

Darwin himself said in his book The Origin of Species:-

"Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory".

The prominent British evolutionist Richard Dawkins speaking of the Cambrian fauna, has made the following comment: "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists". Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).

Evolutionary Paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd states, " All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms? (Gerald T. Todd, "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26, no. 4, 1980, p. 757)

These and most evolutionists expect to find transitions because the Evolution Model of origins predicts they should be found. But the observable facts say otherwise.

From Langomort: "exact ancestry is not possible to establish"

Lagomort has sent you a message:

Re: Scientist who Reject Evolution

Dear Guessman...

You stated:
"gaps can be seen between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, & apes and man."

Are you saying there are no known links found between these groups in the fossil record?

Also, Patterson was not stating there are no transitional fossils. He was stating, due to the extensive nature of the branching bush of life, exact ancestry is not possible to establish. Basically put, the evidence for ancestry between ancient Roman's and Modern Italians is obvious and compelling, but picking up a skull and saying, "This is Charlie's Great Great...Great Grandfather, is a bit too much to ask. This does not mean morphological gaps between groups are not regularly found and in the proper place within the fossil record.

Sir John Ambrose Flemming

7/22/09
To Lagomort,

I found Flemming's book, Creation or Evolution? on line which I ordered. I recently started reading it. His arguments against organic evolution are similar to the ones I am already familiar with. But I wonder if I show you this evidence, if you will reject it like a knee jurk reaction? I wonder if you would really consider it as evidence or would you let your emotions get in the way?

I will continue to read the book to get a more complete handle on his arguments.

But for now let me say this. Fleming had a Doctorate of Science and was familiar with the scientific method: Observable, repeatable, testing. Observations are the key to true science. Fleming noted that there are no observations of one kind of creature changing into another completely different kind. There are systematic gaps between kinds. No transitional forms exist. Darwin predicted that we should find countless links in the fossil record, but none have been found. For example where are the link between the single-cell and multi-celled animals. There should be two celled animals, 20 celled, 200 celled, 2000 celled animals, etc and every number in between, but there are none. We don't find them alive or in the fossils.

What we actually find are single celled animals and multicellular animals. This is observable. You can repeat this finding over and over again including not finding any transitional links of 2 celled, 200 cells. etc, etc. 10 times in Genesis 1 it states that God made each kind to reproduce after its own kind. Like kinds producing like kinds with no Evolution and this matches observable facts.

This is only one of many systematic gaps that have missing links showing genetic homeostasis (no change in kind), and no limitless biological change. Other gaps can be seen between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, & apes and man.

Gaps can be systematically observed as far down as the taxonomic level of Families.

All gaps not accounted for expose flaws in Evolution as a theory. That is what DARWIN indicated. This is so clearly factual that Gould and Eldredge revitalized Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster theory" and popularized "punctuated equilibrium": the notion that Evolution happened without leaving any transitions as evidence for it.

Creation Science as a Model of Origins predicts that Like Produces Like. We observe this today and in the fossils. Darwinian Evolution as a Model of Origins predicts thousands of intermediate step by step changes of one kind of animal changing into another kind. This is not observable.

Colin Patterson, curator of London's Natural History Museum and author of the book Evolution stated that if there was a single transitional link to give as evidence of Evolution he would have displayed it in his book (from Darwin's Enigma by Luther Sutherland chapter 4 under the heading Are There Any Documented Transitional Fossils?).

Fleming references respected Scientists in his day that rejected Darwinian Evolution based on observations like this. No he was not a Biologist specifically, but neither was Darwin. Fleming was a intellectual who thoroughly understood Science. To insinuate he was incapable of making rational scientific judgments about origins because he was religious simply does not stand. He points to observations made by himself as well as other scientists including Biologists.

Post-Darwinian Scientists that reject Evolution

6/15/09
gguessman...

Now how many of the people you named were pre-Darwin?
________________________________
6/17/09
Pre-Darwin scientists

Lagomort,

Great question! The first 6 out of the 13 Creationists were pre-Darwin. The last 7 were contemporaries or post-Darwin. But just in case more post-Darwin Creationists are needed. Here's more: Agassis, Dana, Dawson, Strokes, Smyrh, Virchow, Gosse, Mendel, Fabre, Thompson, Murray, Glaisher, Fleming, von Braum, and many many more. Several web pages and books list large numbers of major scientists who were/are Creationists. See www.icr.org for a book called "Men of Science, Men of God"

Garth Guessman
_________________________________
6/17/09
Lagomort has sent you a message:
Re: Pre-Darwin scientists
Now, can you supply evidence that they did not believe in organic evolution, as well as their reasoning for their disbelief?
_________________________________
6/17/09
Science rejectors of evolution
Hi Lagomort,

Would it be possible if we could work though regular e-mail, so I can keep better track of the creationists for which you want documentation? If you don't feel comfortable with private e-mail, perhaps we can go to a public forum like the open comment area under the ropen/pterodactyl youtube video. As it stands I have no way to check which Creationists were in the list I gave you. I need some way to refer back so I don't miss one or repeat one. For now I will put the first documentation (about Fleming) on the open comment area under the video.

My e-mail address is gguessman@aol.com.

Garth Guessman
__________________________________

6/18/09
Re: Re: Pre-Darwin scientists

To Lagomort,
Famous scientists who reject organic evolution:
1st - Sir Ambrose Fleming: a founder and first President of the Evolution Protest Movement (renamed Creation Science Movement) https://www.csm.org.uk/whoweare.php.

His book, Evolution or Creation? (1938, Marshall Morgan and Scott, 114 pages, ASIN: B00089BL7Y), outlines objections to evolution.

For scientific accomplishments see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ambrose_Fleming

Garth Guessman
__________________________________
6/18/09
Re: Re: Pre-Darwin scientists
Mr. Fleming was not a biologist. Just because he was a scientist he does not get a free pass in being critical, as he made his judgments based on his religious leanings, and not on the evidence.

Again, no viable argument against organic evolution was given by the man. His arguments were based on his own misunderstandings.

If you care to give one of his arguments that you think is legitimate, I would like to hear it.
_________________________________

God Loves You.

The central message in Scripture is that God loves you. It is not appreciated fully until we realize that all of us are sinners worthy of eternal torment in Hell. Harsh as it sounds, it is sadly true. But as we come to understand that we are sinfully flawed, the love of God becomes overwhelming.

It is one thing for a man to love a faithful, caring wife that washes his clothes, cooks his meals, and cleans his house (like my beautiful wife), but it is quite another to love a woman who ignores you, only thinks of herself, and even cheats on you. We are like the selfish woman. We ignored God, put our self first, and Christ is not the Lord of our lives. Yet God looks at us in our rebellious and foolish ways and loves us anyway (Romans 5:6+8). He deeply cares about what you are going through. You are special in His eyes: uniquely made in His own image, and capable of a relationship with Him. You hold great significance to Him. The holy God who created the universe, the same God who rejects all sin, yearns to be close to you. He longs for you to be with Him, but our sins separate us from Him (Isaiah 59:2). Thank God, Jesus bridges the gap. The sinless perfect Man allowed Himself to be abused and crucified for our sins. His blood was shed for us to be cleansed and forgiven.

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded (James 4:8).

“Lord Forgive me, I have sinned...” He is right here. Receive His mercy and enjoy Him.