Litnet

Gebrek aan identifiseerbare filogenese vanuit die fossielrekord, om daardie hipotetiese stamboom waarop die darwinistiese evolusie berus, te bevestig, is vir die darwinisme ’n verdere baie ernstige inherente aftakelingsmeganisme. Hierdie gebreke word weereens by wyse van hipoteses aangevul op ’n baie onwetenskaplike grondslag, sonder dat hierdie hipotese ooit tot bewysbare teorieë sou kon vorder. Tog is die aaneenskakelende wordingsgeskiedenis van organismes en spesies, die afstammingsontwikkeling wat die kontinuïteit aandui, essensieel vir die darwinistiese evolusieteorie om staande te bly. Maar, selfs en verál daar, is onoorkomelike probleme wat dié evolusieteorie tot in sy fondamente (wat óók nie bestaan nie, soos vroeër aangedui) laat tuimel.

“Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. …To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” –
Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time, 1999, pp. 113,116-117;

“Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. …But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years…” –

Fred Hoyle, Mathematics of Evolution, [1987], 1999, p.107;

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the 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. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information…” –

David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50, 1979, p. 25.

“Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees – fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hode podges of defining features of many different groups… Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner – new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.” –

Neil Shubin, Evolutionary Cut and Paste, Nature, vol. 349, 1998, p. 39.

 “It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise…The history of comparative biology teaches us that the search for ancestors is doomed to ultimate failure, thus, with respect to its principal objective, this search is an exercise in futility. Increased knowledge of suggested ‘ancestors’ usually shows them to be too specialized to have been direct ancestors of anything else … In contrast to what is usually stated, therefore, a more complete sample of the fossil record in itself would only complicate the problem of assessing the interrelationship of the fossil species.” –

Gareth V. Nelson, Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, pp. 22-23;

 “The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example.” –

Mark Ridley, The Problems of Evolution, 1985, p. 11;

“Two major reasons for the existence of so many divergent theories on the origin of the vertebrates are the significant difference in morphology between vertebrates and the invertebrate phyla and the complete lack of any intermediate forms in the fossil record.” –

Tracy I. Storer et al, General Zoology, 1979, p. 634;

“[T]here are no fossils leading to primitive chordates or linking them with the vertebrates to which they must have given rise. The latter showed up possessing such advances as a brain case, specialized sense organs, and calcified bones.” –

Robert Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, 1993, p. 41

“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 nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” –
Stephen J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181”

Die ganse struktuur van darwinisme ineengetuimel. Dit is tyd dat dié valse leerstuk as primêre leerstuk van die ontstaan van lewe, onttroon word.

Groete,
Kobus de Klerk