Science Disproves Evolution


Sexual Reproduction


Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

  1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
  2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
  3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
  4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
  5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
  6. This remarkable string of “accidents" must have been repeated for millions of species.
    a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body" from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly," mammals—including each of us—would not exist.
    <span style=“color: green] “The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.” [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London">
    b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm," Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.
    c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm," Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.
    d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
    Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
    Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?
    If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?
    Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
    e. “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals." Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop," Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
    f. “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory." George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
    “So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics." Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
    “The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists." Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup," New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.
    “Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today." Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?" Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
    “Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret." Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex," Omni, December 1983, p. 18.
    “From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?" Nilsson, p. 1225.
    “One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists." [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?" Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.
    g. “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself." Pitman, p. 135.
    [From “In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]]

This bunch of nonsensical drivel is typical creationist lies and distortions. We’ve seen these arguments many times, and they all display a deliberate ignorance of science, history, logic and critical thinking. There is no point debating you because you have made up your mind and are obviously immune to facts. The good news is you’ll engage a few people who are bored enough to respond to your points, then move on quickly and waste no more of CFI’s server space. I hope that doesn’t take long. Self-righteous ignorance is one of my pet peeves.

This bunch of nonsensical drivel is typical creationist lies and distortions. We've seen these arguments many times, and they all display a deliberate ignorance of science, history, logic and critical thinking. There is no point debating you because you have made up your mind and are obviously immune to facts. The good news is you'll engage a few people who are bored enough to respond to your points, then move on quickly and waste no more of CFI's server space. I hope that doesn't take long. Self-righteous ignorance is one of my pet peeves.
Are you able to detail the lies and distortions? So far you have only come up with evidence free denial of the facts presented. For example, where is the display of a deliberate ignorance of science, history, logic and critical thinking?
Are you able to detail the lies and distortions? So far you have only come up with evidence free denial of the facts presented. For example, where is the display of a deliberate ignorance of science, history, logic and critical thinking?
I guess the fact that there is direct evidence of evolution in a fossil record that goes back hundreds of millions of years means nothing to someone who is using faith to decipher the physical world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DLf1us3m0I&list=PLXURpVeSzo9U6erKY4Ay35LC-Qm1hsWFd&index=1 Confirmed by things like molecular biology. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111102.htm http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4#10 On the other hand we have creationism which as I said above is faith based which means it's completely reliant on myth from the mists of deep time that have been completely warped by being passed on by word of mouth for centuries or longer until they don't resemble the original. The theory of Evolution takes observations of the natural world and attempts to make sense of them, in the Relativity of Wrong, Evolution is far closer to the mark than claiming some invisible guy in the sky did it.
Are you able to detail the lies and distortions? So far you have only come up with evidence free denial of the facts presented. For example, where is the display of a deliberate ignorance of science, history, logic and critical thinking?
I guess the fact that there is direct evidence of evolution in a fossil record that goes back hundreds of millions of years means nothing to someone who is using faith to decipher the physical world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DLf1us3m0I&list=PLXURpVeSzo9U6erKY4Ay35LC-Qm1hsWFd&index=1 If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a). Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled. a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163. “...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. 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 [of evolution]." Ibid., p. 323. Darwin then explained that he thought these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record." Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as exploration for fossils continued. Most paleontologists now agree this expectation has not been fulfilled. The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to summarize the situation regarding transitions that should be observed in the fossil record. “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—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection." David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25. “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." Stanley, p. 95. “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View," Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716. Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book entitled Evolution. In a personal letter, 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. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise 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 licence, would that not mislead the reader? ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist 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 organism was derived." I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland. “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 or that." Hitching, p. 19. “There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today." Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32. “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants." George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107. “...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted." Ibid., p. 23. Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Fewer than half (48.3%) said, “it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup." A slight majority (51.7%) said, “supernatural intervention played a role." [Murray Saffran, “Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones," The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11.] Most professors in the basic sciences favor evolution, in part, because that is what they were taught and those who openly reject evolution are not hired or are fired. In the applied sciences (medicine, engineering, etc.) and among scientists in industry, those accepting and rejecting evolution may be nearly balanced. Gallup polls have shown that more Americans reject evolution than accept it. Of course, scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not a vote, with the apparent exception of those who want to continue to believe in the evolution fable despite (not because of) the facts of science. The founders of modern science (Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo, Hooke, and Newton—who, by the way, were creationists and opposed the evolutionary views of their day) based decisions on evidence. In contrast, the science of previous ages was based on philosophical deductions or authoritative opinions. Those who try to establish scientific truth by “counting noses" regress into dark-age thinking. By that criterion, you would believe in a flat earth, because once most scientists believed in a flat earth. [From “In the Beginning" by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019]
Are you able to detail the lies and distortions? So far you have only come up with evidence free denial of the facts presented. For example, where is the display of a deliberate ignorance of science, history, logic and critical thinking?
Confirmed by things like molecular biology. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111102.htm http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4#10 A review of the techniques used in molecular biology reveals that all of them primarily utilise naturally existing life systems. Genetic cloning and manipulation are similar to organ transplants in medicine and grafting in botany. Molecular biologists use existing genes, proteins and enzymes produced by life to make new combinations and modifications. This field, rather than supporting evolutionary naturalism, eloquently supports the creation worldview and provides massive evidence for intelligence and design. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_2/j11_2_212-220.pdf
On the other hand we have creationism which as I said above is faith based which means it's completely reliant on myth from the mists of deep time that have been completely warped by being passed on by word of mouth for centuries or longer until they don't resemble the original. The theory of Evolution takes observations of the natural world and attempts to make sense of them, in the Relativity of Wrong, Evolution is far closer to the mark than claiming some invisible guy in the sky did it.
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138&Itemid=71 http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762 http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137 http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html Bible Accuracy 1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bible-and-archaeology-how-archaeology-confirms-the-biblical-record http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm 2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml 3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies: http://www.100prophecies.com/ http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101lastdays.cfm http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Pahu, do not use blue color in your response. As per the rules, blue is reserved for Admin and Mod messages. Thanks. Dougsmith – Admin.

Pahu, do not use blue color in your response. As per the rules, blue is reserved for Admin and Mod messages. Thanks. Dougsmith -- Admin.
How can I avoid the blue links? They just naturally appear that way. I notice the quotes have been changed to green. How was that accomplished?
Pahu, do not use blue color in your response. As per the rules, blue is reserved for Admin and Mod messages. Thanks. Dougsmith -- Admin.
How can I avoid the blue links? They just naturally appear that way. I notice the quotes have been changed to green. How was that accomplished? Links are automatically light blue. The darker shade of blue is reserved for Admin and Mod messages. I changed those to green. Please do not use blue. Thanks.
This bunch of nonsensical drivel is typical creationist lies and distortions. We've seen these arguments many times, and they all display a deliberate ignorance of science, history, logic and critical thinking. There is no point debating you because you have made up your mind and are obviously immune to facts. The good news is you'll engage a few people who are bored enough to respond to your points, then move on quickly and waste no more of CFI's server space. I hope that doesn't take long. Self-righteous ignorance is one of my pet peeves.
I'm going with what DarronS has already stated, in scientific terms the best explanation for life as it currently is on Earth is a very long process of evolution. Things didn't suddenly appear with the complexity they currently have based on the best evidence.
This bunch of nonsensical drivel is typical creationist lies and distortions. We've seen these arguments many times, and they all display a deliberate ignorance of science, history, logic and critical thinking. There is no point debating you because you have made up your mind and are obviously immune to facts. The good news is you'll engage a few people who are bored enough to respond to your points, then move on quickly and waste no more of CFI's server space. I hope that doesn't take long. Self-righteous ignorance is one of my pet peeves.
I'm going with what DarronS has already stated, in scientific terms the best explanation for life as it currently is on Earth is a very long process of evolution. Things didn't suddenly appear with the complexity they currently have based on the best evidence. Here is something you may find interesting: The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersed—worldwide (b). Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Virtually all of today’s plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)—appear at the base of the fossil record. In fact, many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today (f). Complex species, such as fish (g), worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish (h), sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors (i). The fossil record does not support evolution (j). a. “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." Darwin, “The Origin of Species," p. 348. “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Ibid., p. 344. “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." Ibid., p. 350. “The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Ibid., p. 351. “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash." Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For," “Discover," October 1989, p. 65. “And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] 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" (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 229. Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient," “Discover," April 1993, pp. 38–48. “One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age." Daniel I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," “Science," Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7. “Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?" Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution," “Scientific American," Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84. “Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin." T. Neville George, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," “Science Progress," Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5. b. Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China. See: L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans," “Nature," Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228. Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators," “Science," Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308. Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian. “... it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants." Corner, p. 100. A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab," “Nature," Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796–797. A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, “Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab," “Geological Magazine," Vol. 88, March–April 1951, pp. 129–133. J. Coates et al., “Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range," “Nature," Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266–267. Clifford Burdick, in his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [See Clifford Burdick, “Microflora of the Grand Canyon," “Creation Research Society Quarterly," Vol. 3, May 1966, pp. 38–50.] d. S. Leclercq, “Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian," “Evolution," Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109–114. e. John E. Repetski, “A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America," “Science," Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529–531. “Vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the Cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed." Richard Monastersky, “Vertebrate Origins: The Fossils Speak Up," “Science News," Vol. 149, 3 February 1996, p. 75. “Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate." Paul Chien (Chairman, Biology Department, University of San Francisco), “Explosion of Life," www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html, p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997. “At 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long Haikouichthys appears to be the world’s oldest fish, while another new specimen, Myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To Conway Morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the Early Cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time." Erik Stokstad, “Exquisite Chinese Fossils Add New Pages to Book of Life," “Science," Vol. 291, 12 January 2001, p. 233. “The [500] specimens [of fish] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial. ... The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian." D. G. Shu et al., “Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys," “Nature," Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529. f. “Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100." Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution," “Science," Vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291. “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. “Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed—we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now." Chien, p. 2. “It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist now—that’s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now." Ibid., p. 3. g. “But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in NOTHING, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong ... I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law." [emphasis in original] Errol White, “A Little on Lung-Fishes," “Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London," Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8. “All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they 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 Causal Relationship?" “American Zoologist," Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, p. 757. h. Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783–792. i. “There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like ... Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, “The Insects," Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14–15. j. “If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling." Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, “Stratigraphy http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp3561413

Pahu wrote
“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret." Kathleen McAuliffe

I have a friend who is an evolutionary biologist. He says neither he nor his colleagues have ever been embarrassed by sex in or out of the lab or academia. He has never heard any biological scientst say such a thing.
Al of the quotations are taken out of context. Many of the older quotes, such as by Darwin, have been addressed by sciemtists in books and peer-reviewed journals, but you conveniently omit those responses.
How about breaking down your posts into one topic and one or two quotes? It is impossible for anyone to adequately respond to a long screed such as you have submitted here. This is another way to pretend your citations and positions are valid and irrefutable.
No valid scientist or scientific journalist would vomit up a screed like the ones you have submitted here, and with no context whatsoever. The technique you use is common among creationists, none of whom have a leg to stand on.

Something I have learned when dealing with pseudoscience of whatever topic is the person taking the pseudoscientific position will often find where scientists are not in agreement or where there is uncertainty and blow it up into something else entirely.
Pahu- you could always do a Google search and find a starting point for your research like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
Just remember that with almost any scientific subject there will still be gaps of knowledge. It doesn’t mean the overarching science is wrong though. Did you have an alternate theory? If so, publish it, claim your Nobel Prize and come back and have a chat.

What I don’t understand about all these creationist types is, why would their god give humans reason, creativity, the scientific method, etc. only so that they would NOT use it and instead resort to fairy tales that are so easy to come up with. I mean if I were the big god, and created this incredible machine that produces creative, reasoning, beings, I wouldn’t want them wasting their lives fearing me, praying to me, etc. I’d want them to use the gifts I gave them to figure out the big puzzle and help each other using the tools I’ve given them. I’d be pissed that these creationists have such low regard for Me that they think I’m just some higher form of street magician.
So Pahu, answer me this - why do you belittle God with all this simpleton creationist talk? Why do you think so little of Her?

Pahu wrote
“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret." Kathleen McAuliffe

I have a friend who is an evolutionary biologist. He says neither he nor his colleagues have ever been embarrassed by sex in or out of the lab or academia. He has never heard any biological scientst say such a thing.
Al of the quotations are taken out of context. Many of the older quotes, such as by Darwin, have been addressed by sciemtists in books and peer-reviewed journals, but you conveniently omit those responses.
How about breaking down your posts into one topic and one or two quotes? It is impossible for anyone to adequately respond to a long screed such as you have submitted here. This is another way to pretend your citations and positions are valid and irrefutable.
No valid scientist or scientific journalist would vomit up a screed like the ones you have submitted here, and with no context whatsoever. The technique you use is common among creationists, none of whom have a leg to stand on.
I’m pretty sure that’s the point, to use the shotgun effect to make it as difficult as possible to respond without spending the better part of day on it.

I'm pretty sure that's the point, to use the shotgun effect to make it as difficult as possible to respond without spending the better part of day on it.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
I'm pretty sure that's the point, to use the shotgun effect to make it as difficult as possible to respond without spending the better part of day on it.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop Exactly. I didn't realize there was a name for this. Pahu- If you want to be taken seriously and are genuinely inquiring, it would be much more practical to discuss some of these points one by one. A lot of us have full time jobs and our own families to take care of, which makes it difficult to keep up with mega-posts.
If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record {WHY? Can you explain? I say this because it appears you don't know much about Earth's dynamic geology either} (a). Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.
Considering your sources, it looks as though you aren't looking very hard, at all. Smacks more of desperate cherry picking than anything else. David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25. David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View," Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716. Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32. George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107. Murray Saffran, “Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones," The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11. This is 2016 don't cha know. __________________________________________________
Transitional fossil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/ ... First and foremost, evolution is a scientific fact. For those who are wondering, according to the National Center for Science Education, in science, a “scientific fact" is “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and, for all practical purposes, is accepted as ‘true.’ Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." Similarly, the National Academy of Science says, In science, a “fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. In short, there is a plethora of evidence supporting evolution. It is a very real scientific process that is accepted by the scientific community. No evidence refutes it. None. At all. But a ton of evidence and observation supports it. Yet, the term “missing link" seems to imply that there is a problem in evolution—like there is some key bit of information that we are missing, like there is some grand gap in the historical record that throws the theory of evolution into doubt. This is not the case. TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE MISSING LINK …
Here's another fun read if you want to challenge yourself:
The Missing Link Fallacy By Oliver Knevitt | January 31st 2011 http://www.science20.com/between_death_and_data/missing_link_fallacy-75791 I thought his ending was to the point: "… Wouldn't it be great if a creationist read this and thought: "Hmmm. It appears I have been mistaken for all these years, and I think maybe it's time to join the world of logical thinking". Wouldn't it be great if just one person did that? Will circularreason change his mind? Depressingly, I doubt it very much, and that's the very reason why I am generally reticent to answer creationists. But I'd like to think that, at least I can provide reassurance for anybody teetering on the edge, worried about whether the lack of transitional fossils is something that keeps paleontologists awake at night, and considering converting to the dark side. So, to this person, then; re: the lack of missing links: Don't worry, we've got it covered."

Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Duane.
Duane who?
Duane (your bwain) Gish. (Who will evacuate your bwain of meaningful rational discourse and fill it by galloping in a horde of intellectual-sounding bull shit).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's become so formalized. Some salient points for this thread.
This provides insight into the motives of the Galloper. By using a quantity of arguments as a quality itself, a Gish Gallop tries to create the illusion of authority and weight of evidence. It is effectively style over substance. If brevity and ease of understanding were the aim then they would be better off with a smaller number of points, like "the best five reasons" or "the top ten arguments" as opposed to lists of hundreds. If, on the other hand, the aim was a coherent and thorough argument (as suggested by the word count), then the purpose would be best served by using the thousands of words expended in the Gallop to make a full essay, with each point expanded and elaborated on to ensure it was thoroughly argued.
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as it appears to paint the Galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions.
There's no question that the process is complex, but there is also a wide variety of evidence in support of evolution of species by descent through selection. Whales are a good example. http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
Take the example of whales — using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way: Random genetic changes resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more genetic changes occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head. Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.