Is Evolution Real?
5 THOUGHTS TO CONSIDER
Jacob Valdez
Examining Evolution
5 CRITIQUES TO CONSIDER
C
A
T
G
A
C
A
T
G
C
A
G
C
A
T
G
C
One Common Ancestor?
(Gordon M. 1999) (Lawton G. 2009) (Sterns S. 2009) (Michel R. 2009)
‘Life appears to have many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears to not have been a single root.’
(Malcolm G. 1999)
‘Their [biologists’] predictions are not consistent with much of the evidence. We do not yet have a general and reliable theory of life history evolution’
(Sterns S. 2009)
‘We have no evidence at all that the [evolutionary] tree of life is a reality’
(Lawton G. 2009)
‘The [Evolutionary] tree of life is politely being buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.’
(Michel R. 2009)
The Fossil Timeline
(Raup, D. 1979) (Henry G. 1999) (Fossil Evidence 2004)
https://haysvillelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/nsf-illustration-of-tiktaalik.jpg
‘Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record.’
(Raup D. 1979)
‘The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and decent.’
(Henry G. 1999)
‘[The fossil record like] a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor.’
(Brian S. 2004)
The Cambrian Explosion
(Raup, D. 1979) (Conway S. 1998) David C. and Keith M. (2003) (Falk D. 2004)
3.6 BILLION YEARS
543 MILLION YEARS
20 MILLION YEARS
TODAY
(Conway S. 1998)
‘The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established’
(Stuart N. 2008)
‘The [Cambrian] fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms’
David C. and Keith M. (2003)
‘The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated [dismissed], I believe, to being just one of the several mechanisms … when it comes to understanding macroevolution’
(Falk D. 2004)
The Missing Link?
‘Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen [intelligence] among humans and other animal species’
(Scientific American Mind 2008)
Good afternoon everyone. Thank you all for coming and I’m Charles Darwin.
My name is Carl Stephen.
I’m Jimmy.
And I’m Mr. Biddy
As you know, we’re gathered here to discuss evolutionary theory. I understand that not all of you fully grasp an understanding of evolutionary theory so I first want to explain to you the evolving of humans and then we can go from there. Now close your eyes and imagine what conditions on the earth were like a million years ago.
A long time ago, in a land far away there were chimpanzees. These chimps didn’t look like the ones we see today. Rather, they were slightly less stooped in posture, with shorter tails, and larger heads. They were also very social, likely living in caves or makeshift shelters. Gradually, these chimpanzees evolved into a more humanoid form until we appeared. Go forward several thousand years, and here we are.
Now just wait a minute, where do you get the idea that man evolved from primate?
Well man’s closest relative, the Neanderthal, and second closest, the chimpanzee, are surprisingly similar in structure in almost every aspect. One of the most obvious ways we can identify evolutionary ancestors is by examining their brain size and by reconstructing their faces.
The faces of our earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested. [Any attempts to do so] are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.
OK, we all understand that there are some who try to twist data, but I’m sure you’ve heard of the humanoid, Ida.
Who’s that?
Ida was a humanoid discovered in 2009. She appears to have been the missing link between man and monkey.
Ida was disproven. Just four days after she was publicized, the Guardian said (paper ruffling) “Ida is not ‘missing link’ in human evolution” Why is the unveiling of a new ‘missing link’ given much attention, while the removal of a fossil not given much attention? You also fail to give attention to the differences in scale in creatures.
What do you mean?
Well, first, the size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge while others are small.
Now I’m not saying that I disagree with evolutionary theory but the intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.
Yeah, it’s like there’s a big fossil and then a smaller one in a sequence. Now if you were to make them look the same size then they’d look like they were in order, but why do textbooks alter the apparent size of fossils just to make them fit in a sequence?
I – I don’t know.
Perhaps the only consensus is that there is no consensus
I agree. … Well, let’s call this a meeting.
QUESTIONS?