© 1988, 2000 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.
of the Alleged Reptile to Mammal Transition
A. W. Mehlert,
For many years evolutionists
have claimed that of all major groups of plants and animals, the fossil
record of the origin of Class Mammalia is easily the best. (Olson, p.
207). However it will be shown that the case for the reptile to mammal
transformation is extremely shaky and is based largely on inference,
supposition and wishful thinking. Although I quote large-scale time
frames and use standard geological terms in respect of epochs, eras
and periods, I do not imply my acceptance of the time scales. I use
the time periods for the sake of argument, but even so, the fossils
do not provide a strong case for evolution.
B. Carson, Ph.D.
The ascendance of naturalism
over supernaturalism in American intellectual circles is traced. The
effect of the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis in American
literature, economics and sociology is reviewed.
Evidence for Macroevolution and Darwinism:
Arguments and the Disintegrating Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (Part I)
The eight primary lined
of evidence offered for macroevolution and Darwinian mechanisms are
discussed. Evolutionist scientists and writers are quoted who suggest
that (1) the paleontology argument "contributed . . . nothing to
evolutionary biology"; (2) the phylogeny argument has produced
only a "meaningless waffle" and has been "another miserable
failure"; (3) the classification argument "has nothing to
say about evolution" and "ignorance concerning these relationships
is still great"; and (4) the "facts of comparative anatomy
provide no evidence for evolution," while the "attempt to
find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Similarly,
(5) the embryological argument used to center on a biogenetic "law"
that has "been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent
scholars" and now stands on the problem that "[a]natomically
homologous parts in different related organisms appear to have quite
different origins"; (6) the comparative biochemistry argument offers
a "serious . . . challenge to the whole evolutionary framework"
rather than support by widespread anomalies that require "a robust
rejection of generalized molecular clock hypothesis of DNA evolution";
(7) the population genetics argument has made "no direct contribution
to what Darwin obviously saw as the fundamental problem: the origin
of species," and "is merely the blind leading the blind";
and (8) the artificial selection argument overlooks that "selective
breeding is not analogous to the action of 'natural selection'."
All scientists mentioned in this article are evolutionists.
Has the Speed
of Light Decayed Recently?--Paper 1
The hypothesis that the
speed of light has decayed, presented by Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield
in The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, is shown to be unsupported
by an objective analysis of the actual historic measurements of the
speed of light given in that report. The implications of the hypothesis
for radioactivity and radiocarbon dating are shown to be unacceptable.
Has the Speed
of Light Decayed Recently?--Paper 2
Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Because its historical research
and statistical analyses have no depth, this book (Norman and Setterfield,
1987) fails to prove that the speed of light has decreased over the
past three centuries. Its theoretical interpretations are flawed, and
in some parts do not make sense.
© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation
Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions