Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

Yea, who could possibly look at the evidence and conclude that species come in nested hierarchies with common ancestors linking the whole thing together...

Clearly God just had a fondness for finches, right?

What are you talking about it? Finches remain finches.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um, if this life died out before the Cambrian, then you're claiming that the Cambrian forms magically appeared out of the dirt? That's positively absurd. And it's amazing how you simply ignore any evidence that doesn't suit your preconceived notions.

What evidence am I ignoring? Your worldview won't allow for this to occur and so you ignore the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is that life had died out 20 million years prior to the Cambrian explosion.

Evidence please.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Err... I did concede the point, inasmuch as it's a no-brainer . That doesn't seem to be what you and him are talking about, though - rather, you're debating the importance of the Cambrian Explosion. I'm with Chalnoth when he says modern phyla existed prior to the Cambrian, and that it's importance is limited to the evolution of body parts that more readily fossilise - little more.

My point was that Darwin's original theory was falsified. If you concede then no problem there.

It's a semantic point as to whether Darwin's original proposition has been superseded or simply refined, but his core ideas are very much intact. The minor details have certainly been improved upon, but the main assertion (the universal ancestry of life, etc) are as solid as ever.

I agree, the naturalistic worldview remains the same.

In my opinion, we have a new, modern theory that is broadly identicle to Darwin's, but is ultimately different in its particulars. In another's opinion, this could simply be Darwin's original theory in a more refined form, similar to how quantum mechanics has been refined over the past 50 years - but is still quantum mechanics.

I don't think I would go that far.

Not that this quibble has any relevance whatsoever.

Really. Ok.

 

[Loudmouth]

What are you talking about it? Finches remain finches.

Apes remain apes, and yet you argue against humans sharing common ancestry with chimps. Mammals remain mammals, and yet you argue against humans and bears sharing a common ancestor. Vertebrates remain vertebrates, and yet you argue against humans and fish sharing a common ancestor. Need I go on?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence please.

Loudmouth, please look at the thread. I have provided the sources for all my information.

 

[Chalnoth]

The point is that life had died out 20 million years prior to the Cambrian explosion.

Where in the world did you get this absurd notion?

 

[Chalnoth]

What evidence am I ignoring? Your worldview won't allow for this to occur and so you ignore the evidence.

Um, the evidence of precursors to Cambrian forms in the pre-Cambrian. You're just trying to wave it away with your mythical extinction of all life.

 

[Chalnoth]

My point was that Darwin's original theory was falsified. If you concede then no problem there.

Except Darwin's original theory is valid and accurate for nearly all multicellular life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, please look at the thread. I have provided the sources for all my information.

Your information does not indicate that life died off.

To use an analogy, you are asking for a photograph for every hour that a person has been alive. Lacking such a photograph, you conclude that this person died and was replaced by an identical person through magical poofing.

The geologic record is necessarily incomplete. It will never be complete. To use this record to indicate the disappearance of life is folly at best.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You should know better than to post this tripe. No organism becomes a completely different form from its ancestors. It just becomes a new, specific variant of its ancestors.

And it is proof positive of macroevolution because it is the evolution of a new structure in the body, one that did not exist in the lizard's ancestors.

So how did we evolve from a mammalian reptile?

 

[Oncedeceived]

When?

I provided the sources in the thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

So how did we evolve from a mammalian reptile?

The working theory is still identical to Darwin's original idea. The theory states that we evolved through many steps, all of which were guided by natural selection acting on variation. Also, this process produced a nested hierarchy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No you aren't. You just said that these forms died out before the Cambrian began. Prove it.

I did. I provided sources when I made the claim.

 

[Chalnoth]

So how did we evolve from a mammalian reptile?

Um, that was a rather long process, with many steps along the way. See here:
Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chalnoth]

I did. I provided sources when I made the claim.

Yeah, I didn't see any sources that remotely supported that rather absurd notion that all life died out before the Cambrian. Heck, I don't even see how we could obtain evidence of that happening, because as Loudmouth noted, the fossil record is incomplete.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Apes remain apes, and yet you argue against humans sharing common ancestry with chimps. Mammals remain mammals, and yet you argue against humans and bears sharing a common ancestor. Vertebrates remain vertebrates, and yet you argue against humans and fish sharing a common ancestor. Need I go on?

I believe in the universal design of all living things. I don't believe that there is conclusive evidence to support that humans evolved from chimps. I don't even think that there is conclusive evidence that all mammals evolved from ostracoderms. It is understandable that that assumption could be made. It even could be true that the evolutionary path is what you say it is. I don't think that it changes God's narrative of how life was created. God said that life began in the sea. I just don't think that evolution explains the diversity and mechanisms that are needed for life as we know it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The working theory is still identical to Darwin's original idea. The theory states that we evolved through many steps, all of which were guided by natural selection acting on variation. Also, this process produced a nested hierarchy.

The nested hierarchy was actually around a long time prior to ToE.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um, that was a rather long process, with many steps along the way. See here:
Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't talk down to me Chalnoth. I do know the lineages of mammalian evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe in the universal design of all living things. I don't believe that there is conclusive evidence to support that humans evolved from chimps.

I know what your beliefs are. I am asking for evidence, not beliefs.

I don't even think that there is conclusive evidence that all mammals evolved from ostracoderms.

I think many biologists would agree, however that doesn't change the theory that mammals evolved from reptiles. There are many fossil intermediates that have a mixture of reptilian and mammalian features, most notably transitionals that have bones acting as both jaw and middle ear bones, the exact transitionals that we would expect to see. Whether a specific clade is directly ancestral is always up for debate.

God said that life began in the sea.

Actually, the Bible says that.

I just don't think that evolution explains the diversity and mechanisms that are needed for life as we know it.

Again, I understand what your beliefs are. I am more interested in the evidence that backs your claims. You do understand the difference between beliefs and evidence, do you not?