Regarding Evoltuion - Anyone heard of Dr. Carl Werner?

[lancebussel]

Hello all. I'm new to this forum. I recently came across this video on youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp87AEcgYc4. What is the legitmacy of what he is saying? Is it true that scientists can be this biased for evolution. I didn't think they were. It always seemed that the creastionists were the ones with the biased feelings. I'm a strong believer in evolution and I know there is alot of misinformation and misrepresentation in the creastionist communiting regarding evolution. However, I have yet to think of a refutation for what this man is saying. Neither have I found sufficient evidence to put his claims against evolution to silence. If what he is saying is true, it would be detrimental to the theory of evolution. I myself have been told that paleontologists never find modern animals with dinosuars but if Carl Werner is right then this obviously would be false. I would much appreciate some of your thoughts on this as I have not seen much refutation to his work othe than ad-hominem attacks. He is saying the scientists make up names for old fossils that are actually modern animals found in modern times. He and his wife apparantly traveled to 10 different dig sites and 60 different musuems and photographed all the fossils pertaining to the Dinosaur eras.

 

Here is some of what he says,

 

“We looked only at fossils found in the dinosaur dig sites so that scientists who support evolution could not suggest that the fossils we looked at were not ‘old’. All of the fossils we used for comparisons were found in dinosaur rock layers (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous).”

 

“We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).

“The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”

“Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.

“Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.

“All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).”

“Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc. When scientists who support evolution disclosed this information during our TV interviews it appears that they could hardly believe what they were saying on camera.”

This is were he says that palentologists make up names for old fossils to make them unidentifiable to modern species.

“ A scientist found a fossil sea urchin in Cretaceous rock that looks nearly identical to a modern Purple Heart sea urchin, but assigned it to a completely new genus (Holaster). If you saw that creature alive in the ocean you would recognize it as a Purple Heart sea urchin (genus Spatangus). The different name suggests that sea urchins have changed over time, but this is contrived ‘evidence’ for evolution. The fossil looks the same as the living one.”

Here is the Photo of the fossil he claims was found in old dinosaur rock layers.

Here is the modern living organism that he claims is the same species living today.

He has many more examples of modern fossils and their comparative ancient fossils that he claims are the same species with a different name. I can post them if anyone is interested in seing them. I know this doesnt disprove evolution but it kinda makes me scratch my head about whether or not scientists actually misjudge these things. Is it possible that all these animals lived in the same form, more or less, for millions of years? His refutation is still far from proving creationism. Regardless there must be an answer to this dilemma. Whether or not this man is straight out lying I know not. If anybody know more about this Your Comments would really be appreciated.

Edited January 6, 2016 by lancebussel

[Strange]

I am not going to watch a video (I rarely do) but he looks like just another lying creationist.

 

His objection seems to be that some plants and animals have not changed very much over millions of years. So what? There is no reason they should have. If they are a good fit for their environment, and the environment hasn't changed much, why would they change.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Please give us a synopsis of "what he is saying" that you find hard to refute. One of our rules states that discussions must be accessible without leaving the site. This helps us cut down on people who are promoting their yootoob channels, or crackpots masquerading as their own detractors. Nobody is going to invest half an hour to hear creationist misrepresentations of evolution.

 

Thanks, we'd all appreciate it. No need to respond to this modnote, but you can report it if you feel it's unfair. Report Post is at the bottom of every post.

[dimreepr]

...

[Ophiolite]

At the outset he employs the intellectually dishonest technique of critiquing the origin of matter. This really has no bearing on the theory of evolution. If we learned tomorrow that Big Bang Theory was wholly flawed it would not impact at all on the validity of evolutionary theory. This raises doubts in my mind as to his objectivity - a necessary attribute for a scientist.

 

But more than that his critique of the theory is based on a falsehood. He asserts that scientists do not know how matter could come from nothing. However, this is not a requirement of the theory. Variants propose the Big Bang arising from a pre-existing universe. Other variants have provided an explanation of how the universe could arise from nothing. In short, his attack on this point is wrong and irrelevant.

 

He next claims that scientists cannot explain the origin of life. He implies strongly that they have no idea. Bollocks. There are a host of evolving hypotheses and some very plausible general solutions. True, the details are lacking, but this has only been a valid research field for barely half a century. And, yet again, abiogenesis is independent of evolution. If we learned tomorrow that the first life had been placed there by a creator it would not alter evolutionary theory at all.

 

He asserts that scientists have not come up with ancestors for most, or all of the major groups. He seems to mean phyla, by major groups. The origin of several phyla is indeed unclear, but he omits to mention the substantial advances made in recent years through genetic studies. Nor does he mention that the chain of ancestry is much clearer, as we would expect, at lower levels - Families, Orders, Species and the like.

 

I may continue later, but I got stopped in my tracks when he said - in passing - "Most people know trilobites, they are very interesting and you find them around your home." What?!

[Strange]

I may continue later, but I got stopped in my tracks when he said - in passing - "Most people know trilobites, they are very interesting and you find them around your home." What?!

 

I guess he is thinking of these:

 

They are very, very, very, very, very distantly related.

[lancebussel]

I too found his starting argument to be Ignorant about what the proces of evolutiion is.

 

Evolution is not the Big bang, nor is it abiogenesis.

 

My concern primarily is wether or not the fossils he photographed and the modern animals he claims are the same species are legitamate.

Are scientists actually misrepresenting Fosssils they find in old rock layers or is this man misrepresenting science?

[dimreepr]

Just because some thing’s look similar, it doesn’t mean they are.

Edited January 6, 2016 by dimreepr

[Arete]

The difficulty with the claim of his that you've posted - to paraphrase that fossils of most/all modern organisms have been found in Triassic/Jurassic sediment layers is that it's just plain wrong. They haven't.

 

He's not an expert on echinoderm taxonomy, so he's giving a couple of pictures a good old layperson's eyeball and calling "same enough" which to any taxonomist in any field is laughable. He may as well be holding up a picture of a woolly mammoth and African elephant and making the same ridiculous argument. You'd need the specimen in hand, and to compare the diagnostic characteristics as even the most rudimentary start to calling them the same thing - even then, you'd need to account for potential convergent evolution and evolutionary stasis explaining the physical similarity between specimens. Then, to have any sort of robust analysis, you'd need a decent sample size of fossils and extant echinoderms to compare.

 

I'm going to self cite here, even if he demonstrated that they are phenotypically indistinguishable, that isn't enough. Cryptic species can be physically identical and sympatric - distinguishable only using multiple genetic markers. We encountered this in desert geckos. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790313001085

 

Given that the echinoderms in question are temporally separated by roughly 65 million years, I and the rest of the scientific community would generally expect some pretty compelling evidence that they are the same species, and "they look the same to me in a photo I took at the museum" isn't going to cut it, ever.

 

It's a flagrant display of his own lack of understanding regarding taxonomy, speciation, evolutionary processes and paleontology.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

He seems to think this is a sensible question.

If white Americans are descended from Europeans, how come there are still Europeans?

[Robittybob1]

I am not going to watch a video (I rarely do) but he looks like just another lying creationist.

 

His objection seems to be that some plants and animals have not changed very much over millions of years. So what? There is no reason they should have. If they are a good fit for their environment, and the environment hasn't changed much, why would they change.

I watched the videos and I think he has raised some valid points and those that know about the geological periods and paleontological naming processes need to have a look at the video(s) and explain it to us please.

[swansont]

I watched the videos and I think he has raised some valid points and those that know about the geological periods and paleontological naming processes need to have a look at the video(s) and explain it to us please.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

No, anyone wishing points to be addressed need to raise the points here, as per rule 2.7

 

[Robittybob1]

true, the whole issue should have been discussed on the forum as per the rules.

[Ophiolite]

 

I guess he is thinking of these:

 

They are very, very, very, very, very distantly related.

True, but so am I.

 

I see only two possibilities.

1.He genuinely thinks a bug like this pretty much is a trilobite. If that is the case then the man is an uneducated fool and anything he says should be disregarded.

2. He knows these are only very⁴ distantly related and not trilobites, but lies because it helps support his argument. In that case he is an educated liar and anything he says should be disregarded.

 

There seems to be a pattern emerging here.

 

I think I see why you, lancebussel, encountered so many ad hominems -his arguments have nothing of substance in them. Having read the various responses are there any parts of his presentation that still seem unrefuted to you?

Edited January 7, 2016 by Ophiolite

[Arete]

Thinking about it further (i.e. procrastinating about actual work) the central premise of the argument is even more flawed than the simple fallacies regarding fossils and extant taxa.

 

Dr. Werner seems to be implying that species cannot be created, all species have existed in the past and we simply lose some as time progresses (ergo "evolution is wrong"). That argument is proven false by the fact we have directly observed speciation events in a number of species like the apple maggot fly and the yellow fever mosquito.

 

This means that it is a fact that new species can evolve. So even if his "grand evolution experiment" as he terms it on his website of photographing fossils in museums and saying they look like modern organisms actually proved that they WERE modern organisms (and it certainly doesn't) it wouldn't disprove evolutionary theory.

 

I'd also like to point out that he is an MD who practices family medicine. He is in no way qualified in paleontology, evolutionary biology, taxonomy, systematics, biology or any other field related to his "grand experiment". This is a tactic that creationists use that I really dislike - throwing about erroneous titles to provide the illusion of authority in a given topic area. He isn't a "Dr" in anything relevant to the subject area, and should not be using the title to give the impression that he is.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Arete

[StringJunky]

...I'd also like to point out that he is an MD who practices family medicine. He is in no way qualified in paleontology, evolutionary biology, taxonomy, systematics, biology or any other field related to his "grand experiment". This is a tactic that creationists use that I really dislike - throwing about erroneous titles to provide the illusion of authority in a given topic area. He isn't a "Dr" in anything relevant to the subject area, and should not be using the title to give the impression that he is.

I agree. He should just put his name and 'BSc/BA Biology' after it for the work associated with his ideas.

[Robittybob1]

I watched the videos and I think he has raised some valid points and those that know about the geological periods and paleontological naming processes need to have a look at the video(s) and explain it to us please.

I have watched the videos of the series several times and I have come to a conclusion that what Werner is saying has helped to shorten the divide between the creationist and the evolution views.

He seems to accept time periods of millions of years rather than the thousands of years of the Young Earth philosophy. Also he doesn't say man and the dinosaurs roamed the Earth together, but unfortunately he didn't flatly deny it either.

The videos were largely expressing the views of the "Origins" organisation more so than Werner's views.

[puppypower]

I am not going to watch a video (I rarely do) but he looks like just another lying creationist.

 

His objection seems to be that some plants and animals have not changed very much over millions of years. So what? There is no reason they should have. If they are a good fit for their environment, and the environment hasn't changed much, why would they change.

 

I thought he said there are examples of very similar things, being given different names, thereby creating the impression they are more diverged than they actually are.

 

The analogy is say we have two twins, one is called McManus and other is called McManus Reactis, The two different names will make it appear there is a distinction only the insiders might know. It is a reasonable point.

[Ophiolite]

I have watched the videos of the series several times and I have come to a conclusion that what Werner is saying has helped to shorten the divide between the creationist and the evolution views.

He seems to accept time periods of millions of years rather than the thousands of years of the Young Earth philosophy.

Nonsense.

 

There have always been Old World creationists who have no difficulty with the billions of years that life has been on the planet. And the default position of many conventional Christians is simply that God may have nudged evolution along here and there.

 

In short his position simply sits on the pre-existing spectrum of views and adds absolutely nothing new to the "debate".

 

From a different tack, how can you claim that the gap between creationist and evolutionist views has been shortened by the application of lies, misinterpretations, unfounded denials, withheld facts and manipulative rhetoric. He simply reinforces the notion that his brand of creationist is a deceitful, ill informed charlatan preying on the gullible.

[Robittybob1]

Nonsense.

 

There have always been Old World creationists who have no difficulty with the billions of years that life has been on the planet. And the default position of many conventional Christians is simply that God may have nudged evolution along here and there.

 

In short his position simply sits on the pre-existing spectrum of views and adds absolutely nothing new to the "debate".

 

From a different tack, how can you claim that the gap between creationist and evolutionist views has been shortened by the application of lies, misinterpretations, unfounded denials, withheld facts and manipulative rhetoric. He simply reinforces the notion that his brand of creationist is a deceitful, ill informed charlatan preying on the gullible.

Well the host gave me the creeps more so than Carl Werner. I did not feel he (CW) was coming across as a charlatan, and I suppose his findings were valid in that there were some animals around with the dinosaurs that looked like same then as they do today.

 

Maybe we all knew this somewhat already but he made it his point of study.

Why I thought the jap maybe closing was the way he was being promoted as such a wonderful guy. It was my opinion for what it was worth.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Ophiolite]

I did not feel he (CW) was coming across as a charlatan

That is because you lack the background to properly evaluate the style and content of his presentation.

 

 

I suppose his findings were valid in that there were some animals around with the dinosaurs that looked like same then as they do today.

 

No. His claim was that they not only looked the same, but that they were the same. That is a completely different claim and one that is completely wrong.

 

Maybe we all knew this somewhat already but he made it his point of study.

Yes, we knew that creationists had been misinterpreting and manipulating facts for many decades. There was nothing new in this latest deceitful attempt.

 

 

Why I thought the jap (sic) maybe closing was the way he was being promoted as such a wonderful guy. It was my opinion for what it was worth.

So you thought that because a biased organisation with an agenda wholly opposed to the science of evolution said CW was a wonderful guy that this would somehow bring creationists and evolutionists closer together. That is astounding.

 

It was my opinion for what it was worth.

Not a great deal, as it turns out.

[Robittybob1]

 

That is because you lack the background to properly evaluate the style and content of his presentation.

 

 

No. His claim was that they not only looked the same, but that they were the same. That is a completely different claim and one that is completely wrong.

 

Yes, we knew that creationists had been misinterpreting and manipulating facts for many decades. There was nothing new in this latest deceitful attempt.

 

 

So you thought that because a biased organisation with an agenda wholly opposed to the science of evolution said CW was a wonderful guy that this would somehow bring creationists and evolutionists closer together. That is astounding.

 

Not a great deal, as it turns out.

 

So are you saying somewhere in the video he says something to the effect "they not only looked the same, but that they were the same"?

This is something easily verified.

 

PS: I tried listening to it again but I didn't hear the words you say are there. I might have dozed off at the wrong time!

Edited January 8, 2016 by Robittybob1

[John Cuthber]

So are you saying somewhere in the video he says something to the effect "they not only looked the same, but that they were the same"?

This is something easily verified.

 

PS: I tried listening to it again but I didn't hear the words you say are there. I might have dozed off at the wrong time!

Do you understand that, if he didn't say that, he didn't say anything?

[Robittybob1]

Do you understand that, if he didn't say that, he didn't say anything?

I heard the guy talking so I'd never say "he didn't say anything". So rather than being so cryptic could you explain what you mean please?

 

You could be implying meaningless talk. Don't think for a minute I agree with him for I think his test applied to falsify evolution was not adequate. Like even if the exact same species were found with the dinosaurs as exist today that does not negate evolution IMO.

[Ophiolite]

I heard the guy talking so I'd never say "he didn't say anything".

It is possible to talk extensively without saying anything. Your own posts are generally testament to that.

 

John Cuthber has eloquently nailed it with his question to you "Do you understand, if he didn't say that, he didn't say anything?"

 

Implicit in his assertions that today's species look like fossil species is that they are the same. If he all he is saying is that they look alike, but are not alike, then he is saying nothing of relevance to evolution or creation. Is that not apparent to you?