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 ...
Yes, it really burns the Evos up that the Bible bests Darwin’s fanciful creation myth every time.
Better than the rationale that says that all animals were created at the same time, that extinct critters like dinosaurs perished in Noah's Flood, and yet somehow fail to offer any explanation as to why fossils of extinct critters are found on cohesive strati.
In other words, why are there absolutely no modern-type mammals (including humans) found in fossil layers where dinosaurs are found? Why are no fossils from animals that lived in the Cretaceous period found intermixed with fossils from the Triassic period?
It wasn't. In fact, if you read all those articles GGG posed about the reconsideration of the tree of life metaphor, you may notice that the scientists involve are very excited by the new discoveries. And, of course, rather than suppressing them as you'd expect if there were really a Temple of Darwin priesthood, they're publishing them and discussing them as widely as they can. Scientists are like that.
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.
_____
LOL. Omitting from your analysis that it is other scientists who expose the fraud is a bit fraudulent, doncha think?
it could, in theory, but in order for that theory to have any teeth, we should be able to observe this in various stages in all species today.
The better explanation is the creator used similar components in all his creations.
Creationists don’t have to change their theory lik evo’s do every time someone digs up a bone.
________
I was unaware that creationists had a theory about the origins of the species. Can you provide any further information about this theory?
It is the first time I’ve ever heard a creationist refer to Biblical creation as a theory.
So yes, the observation of DNA change, match the observation of DNA difference, which match the observations of the fossil record; all of which is consistent with the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
That all this data all fits together so nicely can be recognized by any intelligent person even without any specific expertise in the science of biology.
“In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
Pope John Paul II
Moreover your “explanation” is absolutely insufficient to explain the nested hierarchy of similarity and divergence in DNA, the pattern of presence and divergence of ERV sequences; or why humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla; or why new world and old world vultures are more similar to other non-vulture birds than they are to each other.
Completely and totally inadequate as an explanation. Moreover it is not, and never will be, a scientific explanation.
Huh? What does it matter? All I said was that "evo's in their desperation, submit fraudulant evidence". Period.
Oh I get it, you are saying all "scientists" are evo's, so therefore evo's aren't frauds.
But that isn't true at all, is it. Perhaps, if we were to look at a few cases, we might just find that the scientists who exposed the fraud initially may well have been creationists, and if it weren't for their initial inquiry, the evo's may well have looked the other way.
I guess I will have to look into this further one day to see if there is any evidence to support this "theory".
And darn close to identical components in primates. So are apes just rejects from the human assembly line?
(A long day at the factory, a few miscues in grabbing parts from the "components" bins, and another dam bonobo ends up in the shipping department. I hate it when that happens.)
I wasn't referring to the bible. I seldom ever do except to defend it from derogatory attacks.
Corse it wern’t evilution; IT WER MAGICK!
Certainly not a scientific theory...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Figure1.html#wp1018921
Basing your argument on the age of the Earth on if Noah’s ark “probably exists” or not is just delusional.
Huh?
Just because two different life forms have similar biological elements doesn’t mean one “evolved” from the other. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence of this whatsoever.
As I said, just because the creator uses similar materials for his creations, doesn’t mean they ARE the same creation.
And some darned completely different ones too. There are some darned close to identical components in rats and pigs as well. Guess we evolved from them as well?
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.