Zoogenesis: a theory of desperation (Evo admitted creationists explain fossil gaps better)

Journal of Creation ^ | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

Zoogenesis—a theory of desperation

by Russell Grigg

Austin H. Clark (1880–1954) was an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages.¹ Not many people have heard of him today, because he had a major problem with Darwinism, and to get around this he proposed a new theory, which challenged the evolutionary orthodoxy of his contemporaries.

The problem

In an extraordinary book, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis,² Clark showed that there was no evidence that any major type of plant or animal had evolved from or into any other type. He wrote, ‘When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence “This is a crustacean”—or a starfish, or a brachiopod, or an annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be.’ This is because all these fossils look so much like their living counterparts today. He pointed out that none of today’s definitions of the phyla or major groups of animals needs to be altered to include the fossils, and he said, ‘[I]t naturally follows that throughout the fossil record these major groups have remained essentially unchanged … the interrelationships between them likewise have remained unchanged.’³

He even said, ‘Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.’⁴

His solution: a new theory...

[allmendream]

Once again, when you read your source, the species under study DOES NOT GO EXTINCT, and HAS NOT GONE EXTINCT.

DDT doesn't cause a MUTATION (temporary or otherwise)that interferes with egg shell formation, it interferes with the chemical process. Moreover Bald Eagles have not gone extinct.

Prion disease is also not a mutation, nor causes or is caused by a mutation, neither has it caused elk or any other species to go extinct.

You have yet to provide even a SINGLE example of an extinction event that was caused by mutation.

Neither have you put forth a “scientific” theory of creationism, and the idiotic source you cited DID talk about Noah's Ark on the very first figure, titled FIGURE ONE.

And once again, evidence in science is not “proof”, ample or otherwise. Moreover there is not a shred of evidence in anything you provided that either...

a) in the past a species has gone extinct due to mutation

or...

b) we are threatened with extinction at some point in the future due to mutation.

[allmendream]

Lundholm, C.E. (1997). “DDE-Induced eggshell thinning in birds”. Comp Biochem Physiol C Pharmacol Toxicol Endocrinol 118 (118): 113. doi:10.1016/S0742-8413(97)00105-9

DDT is an ion channel disruptor. It is thought to impair the egg laying glands ability to excrete calcium carbonate.

This is NOT due to a mutation in the birds DNA. In other words DDT doesn't know where the egg laying genes are and knows to mutate those genes specifically, a mode of action that so far NOTHING we know of can accomplish.

And what the heck do you think a “temporary” mutation is?

How is it different from a not “temporary” mutation?

[sickoflibs]

RE “It’s in the Bible. According to YECs, the earth was created and populated with life in 6 days approximately 6000 years ago. “

Read it many times. Notice it’s never discussed. It’s always evolution this, evolution that.

[sickoflibs]

RE “It’s in the Bible. According to YECs, the earth was created and populated with life in 6 days approximately 6000 years ago.”

Funny you should mention 6000 years. Arent the stars millions of light years away? Then how do we see the stars? If that’s the theory that is better than evolution, why doesnt the creation site talk about that? It’s always evolution this, and evolution that,

[sickoflibs]

RE “”I went to the link and found no alternative creationist argument or theory at all.
Why would there be? “

AHHH just one of those wacky darwinist claims that you cant disprove SOMETHING with NOTHING. That an creationist site that was serious might actually want to talk about CREATION. NAW!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Yes, it really burns the Evos up that the Bible bests Darwin’s fanciful creation myth every time.”

You mean the two similar Noah’s Ark stories in the bible?

[Oztrich Boy]

All I said was that "evo's in their desperation, submit fraudulant evidence". Period.

And creats would never do that?