A simple Example of Evolutionism's fiction

I already addressed this - Raup is NOT here contradicting himself about his OWN admission that the fossil record IS NOT where we find what we would reasonably EXPECT to find where NATURAL SELECTION true.

Nothing in the statement above deals with the fossil record. A record that is LACKING support (according to RAUP)

Get it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

In UTEOTW's efforts to continually do damage control for the failed religion of evolutinism he continues to ignore the details in Raup's statements AND IN MY QUOTE BY QUOTE comment to what even UTEOTW posted by Raup...
...

So here it is again -- the DETAILS --- quote-by-quote

(Do you "SEE" the term "NATURAL SELECTION" that is in BOLD? Yet?)

The problem is with NATURAL SELECTION itself. And the problem is there EVEN FOR US as WE see that the DATA is "not nearly as COMPATIBLE with Darwinian NATURAL SELECTION as WE would like".

Note to the reader - there are NOT TWO NATURAL SELECTION doctrines in atheist evolutionism -- only ONE!!

</font>[/QUOTE]Cutting this one short to make it harder for UTEOTW to actually ignore the "details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Do you "SEE" the reference to "biological IMPROVEMENT" as the thing that is so hard to find IN the fossil record? yet?

Do you SEE the reference to "CHANGE" so "necessary to evolutionism"?? Yet?

Here Raup strikes at the heart of "Natural Selection" with this reference to descent with modification showing "Biological improvement" - so CENTRAL to Natural selection and so well characterized as UNCLEAR (that this is the case) when the DATA is viewed! (Data that is in the form of EVIDENCE IN the fossil record!!)

Hint: It is in bold.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Do you SEE the reference to Evolutionary Transistion in the text above? Yet?

E.T is critical to evolutionism -- no opting out of it.

Now that is pretty amazing because instead of saying "Natural SELECTION" Raup goes to the EVEN BROADER statement "Evolutionary TRANSITION" and shows that IT IS MISSING (or at least FEWER supposed examples of it THAN in Darwin's time).

Raup even argues that 120 years later AND 1/4 million fossils later the statistical trend is toward FEWER and FEWER supposed examples of "EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION" over time!!

Can you say "approaches zero over time"??

What he is pointing out is a problem in the fossil EVIDENCE for "NATURAL SELECTION" (see the bold highlight above?? details!)

Raup admits it is NOT what we would "reasonably expect". for evolutionary change -- for Natural Selection

"Your problem" is that you ONLY have one mechanism - "natural selection" and Raup ADMITS that the problems for it ARE NOT alleviated EVEN from the days of DArwin on - not SOLVED and NOT alleviated (in terms of ACTUAL PROOF IN the fossil record).

DETAIL:
Notice that Raup's "mountains" of evidence ARE NOT said to be IN the fossil record!!

INTEAD Raup appeal to "mountains" in the form of lab "experiments" unspecified and undefined in the article!!

But Raup CONSISTENTLY admits to a HUGE problem for Natural Selection when it comes to the FOSSIL RECORD.

Notice the question asked at the end of that post --

Did you "see" the details in the quotes above? Yet?

In Christ,

Bob