RFC[ edit ] The following discussion is closed.
Kitts earned his PhD in geology in Certainly, he is qualified to evaluate the significance of the fossil record.
In Kitts authored a review of the book, Search for the Holy Transformation. Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation.
Academic Press; New York. The review is full of revealing statements about how paleontologists attempt to reconstruct the history of life on Earth. It is highly recommended reading for anyone interested in the origins debate.
Here is one of the most interesting statements from that review: Kitts it is impossible to prove either Darwinian or any other branch of evolution using the fossil record. More than that, the fossil record is compatible, again according to Kitts, even with the Theory of Special Creation [The idea that a god started it all whole and complete.
If someone tells you that fossils prove Darwin was right, you can rest assured it is not true. Why do so many people believe that fossils prove Darwinian evolution?
An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G.
Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred.
For him the fossil record reveals not only the course of evolution but its "mechanism" as well. The history of life is an untheory-laden chronicle which any biologist must take as raw data.
Evolution, on this view, is a virtually self-evident fact which remains only to be adequately explained. Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: The error in method is obvious".
If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record, then he has indeed committed a methodological error. But every interpretation of the fossil record must proceed on the acceptance of some theory.
Paleontologists and evolutionists have frequently turned to fossils for crucial tests of some theory, or even simply of some fact, only to come away with the realization that the answers lie more in the theory that they have presupposed in their interpretation of the fossil record than in the record itself and that, indeed, there isn't even any record at all until we somehow make one out of extant rocks and objects that seem to be the broken remains of plants and animals.
The current debate over punctuated equilibria and gradualism as the principle modes of evolution is but the latest illustration of how difficult it is to extract theoretically significant information from fossils.
Darwinian paleontologists cannot take much comfort from the fact that the fossil record does not compel them to reject their theory because it does not compel them to accept it either. The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.
Creation believing scientists, however, make a stronger claim. We assert that fossils not only disprove evolution but argue powerfully in support of a recent creation followed by a worldwide Flood.
Can they prove it by resorting to any fossil evidence? Inthere were no known intermediates between fish and land animals: The Great Evolution Mystery. Inthere were still no intermediates between fish and land animals: Why such confusion and lack of agreement?
Lacking that, all suggestions are mere scenarios and empty rhetoric. Institute for Creation Research,p.
A fishy story that has no legs, Published: Subsequently, more fossilized remains of Tiktaalik have been found. Unexpectedly, at least for evolutionists, fossil tracks of four legged animals were found in Poland inwhich are dated by evolutionists at million years. If there already were some four legged animals supposed million years before Tiktaalik, how can it be an evolutionary intermediate between fish and four legged animals?
Tetrapods from Poland trample the Tiktaalik school of evolution, http: Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. A Fossil Puzzle It is commonly promoted that the fossils are arranged in a certain order within the sedimentary layers:Serial Murder: An Exploration and Evaluation of Theories and Perspectives Ju-Lak Lee Kyonggi University Iui-dong Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, examination of the serial murder epidemic” (Heydari et al., , p).
scholars agree that serial murderers have a minimum of three to four victims. Generally, there is a pattern in their. Theistic evolution is thus not a new scientific theory to explain observed facts, but rather an interpretation of some existing scientific theory (p.
25, n. 4). The four chapters in Part Two are particularly helpful in that they carefully explain what each school of thought does and does not teach. Feb 08, · Are there any alternative origin theories other than creationism or evolution?
Update: yes i realize i made a mistake in calling creation a theory but i Status: Resolved. Specifically, "'Strengths and weaknesses of evolution' is an examination of the credibility of individual elements of evidence in the theory of evolution".
Creation is in every sense as scientific as evolution.
The Relationship of Theories on Origins to Philosophy and Religion. Dr. Gish was Senior Vice President at the Institute for Creation Research. Cite this article: Gish, D.
The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins. Neo-Darwinism or Modern Concept or Synthetic Theory of Evolution: The detailed studies of Lamarckism, Darwinism and Mutation theory of evolution showed that no single theory is fully satisfactory.
Neo-Darwinism is a modified version of theory of Natural Selection and is a sort of reconciliation between Darwin’s and de Vries theories.