Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (58)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (40)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (32)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Evolution is not proven in the fossil record
Saturday, November 14, 2009 5:04 AM PST
The recent discovery of a fossil has caused a stir among evolutionists, some claiming that these particular fossil remains could be a missing link to the evolution of mankind.
Let me help set the record straight for the 10th time, at least.
Leading evolutionists, including paleontologists, who are the experts when it comes to fossil remains, have made it quite clear that there are no missing links in the fossil record to support Darwin's theory of evolution.
As a matter of fact, Charles Darwin had stated on more than one occasion that "the fossil record presses hard" against his theory. In 1869, Darwin posed the question himself, asking: "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine graduations, do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"
Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History in London states in 1990: "If you were to ask me if there are transitional forms in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution, in any line of species, I would have to say no, not one." But that is not all; you have Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History in New York answering the same question. Why has not a single fossil of an intermediate species — missing link — ever been found? His answer: "The pattern (in the fossil record) that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist, the theory of evolution is unsubstantiated by the fossil record." (1989 New York)
What does al of this mean? Stephen Jay Gould, the leading evolutionist in America, summed it up this way: "The fossil record today on the whole looks very much as it did in 1859, despite the embarrassing fact that an enormous amount of fossil hunting has gone on in the intervening years."
It seems that creation, not evolution, is the answer to life on earth!
Tom Baker
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
edumacation wrote on Nov 17, 2009 9:54 AM:
My specialty is in finance and technical analysis. My certifications or proof of expertise and knowledge is not paper hanging on the walls, but cash and gold in a safe.
My hobby is watching investment, real estate, and developer gurus take money from the innocent, naiive, greedy and ignorant.
We have plenty of these species around here. I call the prey "Homo bardus" and the predator "Homo ereptor".
Local government is supposed to protect the infirm, lazy or ignorant (Homo bardus), but instead they assist and work for the selfish, sneaky and the greedy (Homo ereptor).
It is easy to recongnize this in this biome but you don't have to be a libtard to see it clearly. "
edumacation wrote on Nov 17, 2009 9:34 AM:
BA--BS same thing if at CSUSTAN. I was not impressed with any "science" program they have. Oh maybe the study of "ecology" also known as "elucidation of the obvious".
Fine business on the name! How did you share the name? hypenated with your friend or geographical/morphological name. Where is the TYPE species?
Mine is at the Harvard Botanical Museum Collection ECON- Economic Herbarium of Oakes Ames. They have a clone at UCLA department of Plant Physiology / Botanic garden.
But wait--I am NOT a botanist or in any similar field? I am also published in International Journal(s) of Economic plants. Just for fun. It was very easy---as you know.
I have always been an advocate of "Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen" and other chemotaxonomies. "
edumacation wrote on Nov 17, 2009 9:16 AM:
Sven quote "Did you just utter the phrase "phylogenetic classification" Hmmm. I had you figured for a creationist of some degree. Which you still may be. No difference. Extra points on the use of a big term correctly..."
This statement looks aggresive to me!
If you have read many of my posts- I HAVE ALWAYS stated I was "an atheist".
Creationism usually implies some level of belief in magic or faith.
Creationism really never got a boost until Jay Gould oversimplified the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" which he admitted he "borrowed" from Ernst Mayr's work on peripatric and allopatric speciation . Jay Gould like Limbaugh is a good entertainer, but should retsrict his area to what he knows best (Limbaugh sports-and Gould talk shows and low level current events books on general science). "
sven31 wrote on Nov 17, 2009 6:38 AM:
sven31 wrote on Nov 17, 2009 6:36 AM:
Why the tone? I wasn't trying to put you down. I just assumed from your other posts that you were a creationist. Apparently, I was wrong. I didn't mean to offend you and if I did, I'm sorry.
Though I didn't go to cal tech or berkley, I don't think that should mean that much. I know graduates of each as well as most of the major "tier 1" colleges on the west coast. It seems what makes them "teir 1" is difficulty getting in and then cruzing from there on out. Gee, I never went on any sort of "spring break" or joined any fraternities because I didn't have time. I was working almost full time. If this stains me somehow, well too bad.
Yes I do have a plant named after me (well actually I shared it with another third tier classmate (who worked full time).
And I have a BS, not a BA. I also have two AAs and a MS and have a couple state certifications in areas outside of education which I prefer not to reveal. "
iambic grape stomp wrote on Nov 16, 2009 9:42 AM:
edumacation wrote on Nov 15, 2009 9:11 PM:
FYI, your abusive comments makes no sense to me. I am an activist for both chemotaxonomy and phylogenetic classification schemes.
Personally, I am somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic. If someone can offer proof, I can try to understand them with my feeble "triple nine" brain.
Look it up.
Regarding your career, I think the Peter Principle may have been operative yet again?
"...Since you retired". What does that mean? Do you suggest that you are "too old" to learn about YOUR own field?
Probably?
Please tread lightly when you start slinging arrows about. "
edumacation wrote on Nov 15, 2009 9:02 PM:
1. You have a BA degree from a third tier school--and you majored in a soft science, YET, someone must have been working overtime flattering your ego?
WHY? You claim to be a botany dilettante and a "science" educator. Can you impress me with something that YOU have done in YOUR field??
2) Do you have any plants named after you? I claim LIMITED knowledge in YOUR CHOSEN field, yet have published papers in it, AND have a Type Species named after me for my extensive horticulture work (Introgressive hybridization).
3. Stephen Gould - I met him at a book signing years go and was not favorably impressed. He recapitulated an old idea and renamed it "Punctuated equilibrium". I am not impressed when someone borrows the work of others. He is a good public speaker, but so is Rush Limbaugh the sports announcer, and that is nothing to brag about!
Gould did encourage more people to start reading--which is admirable of him. "
peppier2 wrote on Nov 15, 2009 7:34 PM:
When a person believes his forefathers are apes, he tends to act like them. "
sven31 wrote on Nov 15, 2009 7:11 PM:
Did you just utter the phrase "phylogenetic classification" Hmmm. I had you figured for a creationist of some degree. Which you still may be. No difference. Extra points on the use of a big term correctly.
You know, I'm not sure they even do classification in science or biology anymore. Before I retired (and had been out of the classroom for a number of years) we always did it. The kids enjoyed it.
As for evolution, if the kids asked "Mr. sven31, do you believe we came from monkees? I would say no. Monkees are to low on the IQ scale. Chimpanzees or a branch of apes is more likely. My grandfather was an ape, but also the first ape to have a color tv. "
edumacation wrote on Nov 15, 2009 4:00 PM:
Punctuated Equilibrium: Please read about it. It is NOT separate from Gradualism but instead is a description of how natural selection seems to jump in phylogenetic classification of organisms from the geological "millions of years" to the relatively "rapid" (from a human perspective) thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.
Here is a simple way to view the physical world.
1) A solid foundation of knowledge based on the scientific method.
and/or
2) A belief system involving faith that non-objective criteria or phenomenon can explain the currently unexplainable.
Extremes can be from "magical thinking" and "intercessory prayer", to a mixture of science and hope (faith).
This is NOT to say that any of these ways of thinking are "wrong". The religious or "creation" perspectives are only undefined and not objective.
If you prefer defined and objective:
Natural selection, evolutionary biology, embryology and other objective knowledge can help one understand the scope of the subject.
If you prefer the undefined and subjective: You can invent any theory to fit your reference frame.
Hobbitism anyone? "
dogbark wrote on Nov 15, 2009 8:50 AM:
dogs4you wrote on Nov 14, 2009 4:54 PM:
dogbark wrote on Nov 14, 2009 3:14 PM:
Whooee. We sure don't follow that part of the infallible Bible today do we. Why we've even got divoreced and remarried preachers nowadays!
Oh, I know, I know, it is explained OUT OF CONTEXT. Really? 3 other Gospels read the same, on Matthew adds the fornication clause.
So stop trying to defeat science with a re-written and re-written ancient testament. "
sven31 wrote on Nov 14, 2009 8:02 AM:
Simply because he has no literal evidence, doesn't mean he doesn't believe it happened. It's called "closure". Filling in from the context of all the evidence collected.
Look this up on google. My key words 'Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History', yielded 120,000 citations. Mostly from creationists. This doesn't mean creationists are correct, it just means that more of them have written of or spoke of this quote, and that they are more active than real scientists in spreading their message.
Following the key quote above, he goes on to cite several examples of a continual evolution shown in the fossil record which lends itself to evolution more than creation. "
voter wrote on Nov 14, 2009 7:38 AM:
It belongs on the religion page. "
yeah you wrote on Nov 14, 2009 7:08 AM:
Here's what is says about Niles Eldridge at the Museum's web site ... "He has also combated the creationist movement through lectures, articles and books—including The Triumph of Evolution...And The Failure of Creationism (2000)."
"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false," -- Stephen Jay Gould.
Sloppy letters come from sloppy minds. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 14, 2009 7:00 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.