Posted on 04/06/2009 11:48:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Zoogenesis—a theory of desperation
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.
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...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Evo is a term of respect and affection I suppose.
Evo and Creo are accepted abbreviation terms on this forum, by both sides of the debate, and have been for over 11 years.
It short for Evolution scientists and laymen, just as IDers is short for Intelligent Design scientists and laymen.
I agree. If I were somehow still an evolutionist, the collapse in the last few years of the concept of an 'evolutionary tree' would be really gut-wrenching. There's something silly about claiming that all life evolved from a common ancestor when they can't even identify the pathways by which that supposedly happened.
Different data gives different pathways - yet they refuse to take the obvious lesson from the conflicting data. Somehow one set of cladistic data has to be right and all the others wrong; isn't it more reasonable to conclude the assumption of common ancestry itself is what is wrong?
The observed mutation rate from generation to generation is not only sufficient to explain the differences in the genomic DNA of closely related species, it is more than sufficient due to the principle of purifying selection.
The 2% genetic difference and 6% genomic difference between humans and chimpanzees is easily explained by the observed mutation rates and six to seven million years of divergent evolution.
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.
Except for a few attempts by EVO's to introduce fakes, so desperate are they to find even ONE in a world where there should be millions if the theory was to hold any water. But that won't stop them from the occasional attempts to commit fraud, and offer up the occasional petrified salamander to offer as irrefutable proof.
==conclude the assumption of common ancestry itself is what is wrong?
That will never happen, unless of course they conclude that life on earth is many billions of years old...but that would require them to literally turn all of their assumptions upside down (from the age of the Universe, to the approx. date of the origin of life...everything!) Talk about a pride-sucking experience!!!
They sure do operate a lot like those global warming alarmists, don’t they...
The Devil made me do it.
I would say we are at a tipping point. The Evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle for a new evolutionary ship, the Creationists are standing as tall and as strong as ever, and we are being treated to regular papers and articles calling for Darwood’s demise so that “evolution might live.” But that won’t stop them, look for a new God-denying evolutionary “synthesis” to come along shortly.
Why would there be?
If you say so.
Why would there be? Creationists don't have to change their theory lik evo's do every time someone digs up a bone.
Thanks. I was able to guess at the etymology of the name calling.
On the flip side, the mutation rate is high enough that every person born carries hundreds of new harmful mutations in their germ plasm, as Cornell biologist Dr. John Sanford has explained in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. (This is easy to predict, given the 1/100,000,000 mutation rate and the fact that the human genome consists of billions of DNA segments). This flood of harmful mutations completely swamps the ability of natural selection to select 'healthier' individuals (because all individuals are less healthy genetically than their parents), and renders the whole debate a moot point.
Go ahead, deny.
Indeed. I would agree that both beliefs rely on faith. The only difference (and it is a big one) is in who or what the faith is placed.
Two edged sword that.
Not at all. First, Clark was a evolutionist, he wasn't trying to prove creationism. Secondly, the fact that we are here, unchanged starting from a relatively recent time as far as we can tell supports creationist theory.
Which is it? Can you at least settle on one or the other? How could it be both?
Over six or seven million years, mutation is either insufficient to explain the 2% genetic and 6% genomic difference; or over six to seven million years, mutation is so strong that it would drive us all extinct due to a much greater than 2% genetic difference and 6% genomic difference.
Which one is it?
Apparently only a creationists is comfortable enough with cognitive dissonance enough to try to claim both simultaneously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.