There has been no science falsifying evolution. I would like to know these sources you are talking about.
Science has not ruled out that God exists, again, science does not ask the God question. The personal opinion of whether or not a particular scientist believes in a God or not has nothing to do with the specific experiments done that yield naturalistic results.
Maybe I can help. I've done a lot of research into this topic.
Here are some things I've found around the place:-
http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils
That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
Embarrassed evolutionists try to ‘muddy the waters’
by Gary Bates
Anyone reading creationist literature for a few years soon becomes aware that we often use quotes by evolutionists which discredit their own belief system. This raises the ire of many in the evolutionary establishment, and often they will accuse creationists of ‘taking their remarks out of context’. This is rarely the case. However, one can imagine that the spectre of condemnation from fellow evolutionists would these days tend to limit any careless remarks from the pro-evolutionary camp.
One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.
So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.
Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:
‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added].
Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”’5
Being a world-renowned fossil expert, Patterson’s frank admissions were embarrassing to adherents of the ‘religion of evolution’—including himself, it would appear. But there were even more devastating revelations to come from Dr Patterson.
During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:
‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realisation.
‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:
‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’6
Dr Patterson’s penchant for openness did not do him any service with the pro-evolutionary scientific establishment, who often expressed anger and dismay at his comments when they could not make excuses for them. His experience and expertise as holder of one of the most prestigious scientific posts in the world did not grant him immunity from pressure for having dared to express doubts about the evolutionary worldview. It is a sad reminder that political and ideological correctness can be more important than any so-called ‘objective facts’ in determining scientific acceptance of an idea.
References and notes
1.Theunissen, L., Patterson misquoted, 13 July 2005. Return to text.
2.Patterson, C., Evolution, The British Museum of Master Books, Natural History, London, 1978. Return to text.
3.Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 101–102, 1998. Patterson’s letter was written in 1979. Return to text.
4.Called punctuated equilibrium—the idea that evolutionary changes do not tend to take place gradually and continually in the main population over long time periods, but in (relatively) short bursts in small isolated populations which will therefore be less likely to be fossilized. This notion would not have been invented if not for the fact that the fossil record does not fit the predictions of Darwin and subsequent evolutionists. Their evolutionary opponents unkindly referred to it as ‘evolution by jerks’. See also Batten, D. J., Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? Journal of Creation 8(2): 131–137, 1994. Return to text.
5.Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
6.Can you tell me anything … about evolution?, 14 July 2005. Emphasis in transcript, not necessarily reflecting oral emphasis. Return to text.
----------------------------------------------------
"New species might arise as a result of single rare events, rather than through the gradual
accumulation of many small changes over time, according to a study of thousands of species and
their evolutionary family trees.
This contradicts a widely accepted theory of how speciation occurs: that species are continually
changing to keep pace with their environment, and that new species emerge as these changes
accrue. Known as the 'Red Queen' hypothesis,
...
The team's findings might stir things up in the world of evolutionary biology. "It really goes against the grain because most of us have this Darwinian view of speciation," says Pagel [Mark Pagel, University of Reading UK]. "What we're saying is that to think about natural selection as the cause of speciation is perhaps
wrong."
(From a recent article in NatureNews - 9 December 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1134)
-------------------------------------------------------
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." *Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism, " in Compass, May 1968, p. 218.
-------------------------------------------------------
"The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists." —*Sir William Dawson, Geologist.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among Paleontologist, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." —*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88
-------------------------------------------------------
"Substantive uniformitarianism as a descriptive theory has not withstood the test of new data and can no longer be maintained in any strict manner." —*S J. Gould, "Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?" in Journal of Paleontology, March, 1956, p.
--------------------------------------------------------
"There are many other reasons why we should not blandly accept the doctrine of uniformitarianism." —*E. Haylmun, "Should We Teach Uniformitarianism?" in Journal of Geological Education, 19 (1971) p. 36.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The hurricane, the flood, or the tsunami may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have achieved in a thousand years." —*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, p. 49.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Conventional uniformitarianism, or 'gradualism,' i.e., the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all post-Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic histories of which these sediments are the record." —*P. Krynine, "Uniformitarianism is a dangerous Doctrine, " in Paleontology, 30 (1956) p. 1004.
---------------------------------------------------------
"The very foundation of our science is only an inference: for the whole of it rests on the unprovable assumption that all through the inferred lapse of time which the inferred performance of inferred geological processes involves, they have been going on in a manner consistent with the laws of nature as we now know them. We seldom realize the magnitude of that assumption." —*W. Davis, The Value of Outrageous Geological Hypothesis, " Science 83; May 7, 1926; pp. 485-468.
---------------------------------------------------------
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." —*J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------
"It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organs has been determined by a study of their remains buried in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." —*R.H. Rastal, article "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, (14th ad.; 1958), p. 168.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the other hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" —*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.
---------------------------------------------------------
Article on Big Pond's News service ("Qld research questions evolution theories" April 26, 2007 - 9:05AM Source: ABC ) that the Mighty Theory of Evolution has suffered a serious blow at the hands of the humble Coral Polyp.
From the Article:-
"Scientists at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies believe discoveries about the genetic complexity of coral could rewrite theories about evolution.
After identifying about 10,000 genes, they believe coral could contain more genes than humans who posses about 20,000.
Coral is considered to be a simple animal.
However, Professor David Miller says its genetic complexity challenges the notion that life started out simple then evolved to become more sophisticated."
"There's this intrinsic tendency to think about a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes which have allowed an increased morphological complexity in higher animals and what the coral genomes tell us is that that's completely wrong and that most genes were invented very early in animal evolution," he said."
).
