Comments on: Taking a Step Backward on Science Standards http://tfninsider.org/2008/11/19/taking-a-step-backward-on-science-standards/ The Official Blog of the Texas Freedom Network Sun, 20 May 2012 18:15:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: windar 007 http://tfninsider.org/2008/11/19/taking-a-step-backward-on-science-standards/#comment-135 windar 007 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:10:57 +0000 http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/?p=826#comment-135 I think I know why there are those who deny macroevolution. It has a lot to do with observable science. You know, science done in the lab and out in the field? Work with fruit flies has been done since 1909 (Morgan at Columbia U) and after untold thousands of mutated generations they remain fruit flies - as creation science predicts. Darwin's finches not only remain birds - but 100% finches as creation science predicts (even creation-basher Weiner admits that "different" species can interbreed in his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1994 book). No macroevolution in vertebrates, no macroevolution in invertebrates, but you people still whine that macroevolution is "a fact". This is in spite of the clear scientific evidence against it. “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown.” – A.G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia fossil section, 2003 The following quotes are from Hickman, Roberts & Larson, Zoology W.C. Brown, 1997 - “The origin of the ciliates [e.g. the Paramecium] is somewhat obscure.” – p. 235 “Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists.” – p. 240 “. . . one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans [a phylum of animals containing only one organ, a gonad] in the evolutionary picture.” – p. 242 “The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure.” – p. 275 “Any ancestral or other related groups that would shed a clue to the [evolutionary] relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct.” – p. 317 “The primitive ancestral mollusc was probably a more or less wormlike organism . . .” – p. 346 “No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism and the coelom, although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over the years.” – p. 365 “What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids? This has been the subject of a long and continuing debate.” – p. 365 “Controversy on phylogeny within the Chelicerata also exists . . .” – p. 379 “The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle.” – p. 399 “The evolutionary origin of insect wings has long been a puzzle.” – p. 429 “The phylogenetic affinities of the Pentastomida are uncertain. – p. 439 “The phylogenetic position of the lophophorates has been the subject of much controversy and debate.” – p. 447 “Despite the excellent fossil record, the origin and early evolution of the echinoderms are still obscure.” – p. 450 “Despite the existence of an extensive fossil record, there have been numerous contesting hypotheses on echinoderm phylogeny.” – p. 465 “Hemichordate phylogeny has long been puzzling.” – p. 476 “However, the exact phylogenetic position of the chordates within the animal kingdom is unclear.” – p. 480 “ . . zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being preserved as fossils even under the most ideal conditions.” – p. 485 [In other words, there is no evidence for their evolution] “The fishes are of ancient ancestry, having descended from an unknown free-swimming protochordate [a tunicate or lancelet] ancestor.” – p. 499 “To the cladist, however, the statement that humans evolved from apes says essentially that humans evolved from something that they are not, a trivial statement that contains no useful information.” – p. 204 (phylogenetic systematics = cladistics) “Our concepts of species have become more sophisticated, but the diversity of different concepts and the disagreements surrounding their use are as evident now as they were in Darwin’s time.” – p. 205 “The presence of hair in mammals may seem a trivial matter, but the exact timing of the origin of hair in mammals is unknown because the fossil record of the evolution of hair in mammals is exceedingly sparse. The developmental origin of hair is equally mysterious . . .” – Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution, Anderson & Dieter Sues, editors, Indiana U Press 2007, p. 153 "Perhaps no aspect of evolution has received such intense study as human evolution, yet this is a subject concerning which there is much debate, and about which there is much still to be learned." Colbert, 2001, p. 348. I won't even get into the "Out of Africa" vs "multiregional" theories - and how macroevolutionists from each group shred the other (yup, both do ASSUME H. erectus is our alleged ancestor (John Hawks, U. of WI, Madison), but remember, H. erectus got disqualified as our ancestor (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p. 55) - as creation science predicts. I think I know why there are those who deny macroevolution. It has a lot to do with observable science. You know, science done in the lab and out in the field? Work with fruit flies has been done since 1909 (Morgan at Columbia U) and after untold thousands of mutated generations they remain fruit flies – as creation science predicts. Darwin’s finches not only remain birds – but 100% finches as creation science predicts (even creation-basher Weiner admits that “different” species can interbreed in his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1994 book). No macroevolution in vertebrates, no macroevolution in invertebrates, but you people still whine that macroevolution is “a fact”. This is in spite of the clear scientific evidence against it.
“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown.” – A.G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia fossil section, 2003
The following quotes are from Hickman, Roberts & Larson, Zoology W.C. Brown, 1997 -
“The origin of the ciliates [e.g. the Paramecium] is somewhat obscure.” – p. 235
“Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists.” – p. 240
“. . . one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans [a phylum of animals containing only one organ, a gonad] in the evolutionary picture.” – p. 242
“The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure.” – p. 275
“Any ancestral or other related groups that would shed a clue to the [evolutionary] relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct.” – p. 317
“The primitive ancestral mollusc was probably a more or less wormlike organism . . .” – p. 346
“No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism and the coelom, although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over the years.” – p. 365
“What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids? This has been the subject of a long and continuing debate.” – p. 365
“Controversy on phylogeny within the Chelicerata also exists . . .” – p. 379
“The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle.” – p. 399
“The evolutionary origin of insect wings has long been a puzzle.” – p. 429
“The phylogenetic affinities of the Pentastomida are uncertain. – p. 439
“The phylogenetic position of the lophophorates has been the subject of much controversy and debate.” – p. 447
“Despite the excellent fossil record, the origin and early evolution of the echinoderms are still obscure.” – p. 450
“Despite the existence of an extensive fossil record, there have been numerous contesting hypotheses on echinoderm phylogeny.” – p. 465
“Hemichordate phylogeny has long been puzzling.” – p. 476
“However, the exact phylogenetic position of the chordates within the animal kingdom is unclear.” – p. 480
“ . . zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being preserved as fossils even under the most ideal conditions.” – p. 485 [In other words, there is no evidence for their evolution]
“The fishes are of ancient ancestry, having descended from an unknown free-swimming protochordate [a tunicate or lancelet] ancestor.” – p. 499
“To the cladist, however, the statement that humans evolved from apes says essentially that humans evolved from something that they are not, a trivial statement that contains no useful information.” – p. 204 (phylogenetic systematics = cladistics)
“Our concepts of species have become more sophisticated, but the diversity of different concepts and the disagreements surrounding their use are as evident now as they were in Darwin’s time.” – p. 205

“The presence of hair in mammals may seem a trivial matter, but the exact timing of the origin of hair in mammals is unknown because the fossil record of the evolution of hair in mammals is exceedingly sparse. The developmental origin of hair is equally mysterious . . .” – Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution, Anderson & Dieter Sues, editors, Indiana U Press 2007, p. 153

“Perhaps no aspect of evolution has received such intense study as human evolution, yet this is a subject concerning which there is much debate, and about which there is much still to be learned.” Colbert, 2001, p. 348.
I won’t even get into the “Out of Africa” vs “multiregional” theories – and how macroevolutionists from each group shred the other (yup, both do ASSUME H. erectus is our alleged ancestor (John Hawks, U. of WI, Madison), but remember, H. erectus got disqualified as our ancestor (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p. 55) – as creation science predicts.

]]>