Many people have
never even heard of The Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. It has been around
since 1972 and it spells the end of Darwinism as you know it.
As I have explained
fully in Proof #18, The Fossil Record [1] and Proof #58, The Cambrian Explosion
[2], there is no evidence in the fossil record for Darwinism, the slow and
gradual emergence of new species from previous species by passing through
transitional forms (also called Missing Links, see Proof #64 [3]).
Even Darwin himself
recognized this, but he blamed an inadequate fossil record. Ever since Darwin,
as more and more fossils were discovered without any transitional forms, evolutionists
found this only an uninteresting observation not disproof, if they acknowledged
it at all. Certainly they kept it an unspoken secret if it could damage belief
in Darwinism.
Here are two quotes
from 1980.
“The missing link
between man and the apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists
since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of
phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a
silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan
prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms
between species, the more they have been frustrated.” [4]
“… Evidence from
fossils now points overwhelmingly away from classical Darwinism which most
Americans learned in high school:…Increasingly scientists now believe that
species change little for millions of years and then evolve quickly, in a kind
of quantum leap…The theory is still being worked out” [5]
You didn’t know
that Evolutionists don’t believe in Darwinism any more, did you?
Darwinism actually
began to die out among paleontologists even earlier in 1954 when Ernst Mayr
published his paper, “Change of genetic environment and evolution". [6] He
showed that Darwin’s theory of slow and gradual evolution could not work in
real life if there were large numbers of a given species. He proposed
“Allopatric speciation” as the process of evolution and it was generally
accepted by 1972.
“Allopatric
speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized
by their large volume and the process of gene flow. New and even beneficial
mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach
fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments. If this is
the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the
fossil record indicates.” [7]
After 120 years of
observing the fossil record, the evolutionists finally recognized that any
given species does not change much, if at all, for millions upon millions of
years. True believers that they are, this didn’t stop them. Darwin’s Theory of
Evolution predicted that there would be slow and gradual changes upward over
time resulting in many new species. This didn’t show up. Rather than say that
the Theory of Evolution was wrong, they decided that the slow and gradual must
have been wrong.
They didn’t think
to tell every school teacher after about 1954 that what they are teaching about
slow and gradual evolution is false. The evolutionists let them go on teaching
Darwinian evolution that they themselves no longer believe.
“In 1972,
paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper
developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built
upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories
of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical
research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly
attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and
that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” [8]
Let me add my own
emphasis to double the impact: Darwinian gradualism is virtually nonexistent.
The Theory of
Punctuated Equilibrium states that a species will stay almost exactly the same
for millions of years, i.e. in stasis or equilibrium, until there are sudden
“punctuated” changes of a huge degree and a whole new species emerges in a very
short period of time. The original species will probably continue to exist but
a new daughter species will spring up suddenly in some isolated location from a
small population. Only a small group of individuals could change so radically
in a short geological time frame into a new species.
Here is an astounding
statement which is found in Wikipedia. “Before Eldredge and Gould alerted their
colleagues to the prominence of stasis in the fossil record, most evolutionists
considered stasis to be rare or unimportant.” [9] Darwinism predicts there is
slow and gradual change over time and yet Wikipedia says the fact that nothing
was changing over time was unimportant to them!
This admission and the
new theory obviously turns Darwinism on its head. However, evolutionists, even
if they don’t see evidence, still believe it is the truth. Evolution is still
true even if they can’t find evidence yet. Besides, they concluded, there was
never any real requirement that the changes be slow and gradual.
“…at a conference
in mid-October at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, the majority of
160 of the world’s top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists
and developmental biologists supported some form of this theory of “punctuated
equilibria.” [10]
Let me say that
more clearly for you. A majority of the world’s top scientists agreed in 1980
that Darwinism as it was taught to you in school is false. Hence my conclusion,
Darwinism has died.
Therefore for
teachers to teach that scientists believe in Darwinism has been false since at
least 1980.
Punctuated
Equilibrium accounts for the fossil record much better than Darwinism. But you
are probably asking yourself, “How could such massive changes take place
evolving a new species in a short period of time if it hasn't happened
over millions of years?” The new theory explains this by saying that the
massive changes take place in small fringe populations that get isolated from
the larger populations. The huge changes take place in a short geologic period
of time, i.e. a few thousand years through processes something like inbreeding
and major environmental shifts.
This is very helpful
because it explains why there are no transitional fossils, no missing links.
The populations were isolated and also there were relatively few individuals, therefore
they were less likely to leave fossils in the record.
It’s also very
helpful to evolutionists because it predicts that you won’t find the fossils you
need to prove it’s true. So also you conveniently won’t be able to find any
evidence that the theory is false either.
Many philosophers
of science accept a definition of a valid scientific theory as one that is
based upon (1) repeatable observations, (2) one that is subject to testing and
making accurate predictions, and (3) one that is "falsifiable." The “punctuationists” clearly have some
problems having a valid scientific theory.
Random Mutation and
Natural Selection cannot be shown to create any new species even over very long
periods of time, so the best new theory evolutionists have come up with is that
it must happen over a very short period of time. Their theorized descriptions
come off sounding very scientific and very complicated, but the bottom line is
that there is no evidence that the process actually works or could work.
Here is an
astounding statement by an evolutionist.
“The core
observation that once most species show up in the fossil record they exhibit
hardly any change at all – not uncommonly remaining essentially static for
millions of years – was made 150 years ago and was known to Darwin, but little
was made of it until comparatively recently.” [11]
The Theory of
Evolution predicts slow and gradual change over time. However, they made the
“core observation” for 150 years that this was NOT happening and yet “little
was made of it.” Do they really call themselves scientists?
“Now we admit that
evolution is more of a fits-and-starts affair than we used to think. This
hardly seems to be the stuff of revolution.”[12]
That quote is from
Niles Eldredge, who came up with punctuated equilibrium. He can say it is no
big deal, but it means traditional Darwinism is dying out, if it’s not already
dead. To me that is certainly very revolutionary. Why, because all the schools
teaching Darwinism need to stop it right now.
Probably, it will
take time, but the handwriting is already on the wall. Darwinism is dead. What
you and I learned in school and what is still being taught today is FALSE and
they know it. And they don’t have any viable proof for their latest theory
either, just blind faith and hope they can find some other mechanism in the
future to make the theory come true without God.
I thought you
should know what many of the scientists have admitted to themselves since 1972.
We believers can
see that evolutionism is pure faith, not science, even if they can’t.
Actually their
faith is less scientific than someone’s faith that there is a Creator God. The
theory of a Creator better explains the scientific facts. Maybe if evolutionists
keep researching, they’ll eventually find God, but only if they are willing to
go where the evidence leads them.
The only truly
scientific conclusion is that there must be God.
----------------------------------------
[1] Jim Stephens,
Proof for God #18 The Fossil Record, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2012/08/18-fossil-record_29.html
[2] Jim Stephens,
Proof for God #58, The Cambrian Explosion, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/04/58-cambrian-explosion.html
[3] Jim Stephens,
Proof for God #64, Missing Links, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/64-missing-links.html
[4] Jerry Adler and
John Carey, Is Man A Subtle Accident?, Newsweek Magazine, November 3, 1980,
page 95
[5] Jerry Adler and
John Carey, Is Man A Subtle Accident?, Newsweek Magazine, November 3, 1980,
page 95
[6] Mayr, Ernst
(1954). "Change of genetic environment and evolution" In J. Huxley,
A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. Evolution as a Process. London: Allen and Unwin,
pp. 157-180.
[7] Wikipedia,
Punctuated Equilibrium, Theoretical mechanisms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
[8] Princeton
University Website, article on Punctuated Equilibrium, http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Punctuated_equilibrium.html
[9] Wikipedia,
Punctuated equilibria, section on Stasis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Stasis
[10] Jerry Adler
and John Carey, Is Man A Subtle Accident?, Newsweek Magazine, November 3, 1980,
page 95
[11] Niles
Eldredge, Evolutionary Housekeeping, Natural History Magazine, February,
1982, page 79
No comments:
Post a Comment