Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[DogmaHunter]

So what your saying is that the fossil record is not an adequate source to support the theory of evolution at these levels. Where then is the proof?

DNA.

Fossils support evolution theory in the sense that the ones we find make sense. ie, we're not finding rabbits next to trilobites for example.

But fossils are, obviously, very limited in supply. Of some periods we have as good as no fossils at all. Not because the periods didn't exist, but because, as said, creation a fossil is really hard. It's already a rare event to have hard bodies fossilize. It shouldn't even need any explaining why it would be even rarer / harder to have fossils of soft bodies that are even hundreds of million years older.

It simply is not reasonable to expect to find such ancient bodies while being preserved well enough to analyse them in some kind of comparative study. Not to say that it would be absolutely ridiculous to expect such....

Fossils are very hard to come by and it is in fact amazing that we have as many as we do.

The real smoking gun evidence for evolution, the kind of evidence that makes devout christian scientists like Francis Collins say that no reasonable mind could doubt it while staying intellectually honest, is the evidence we find in DNA.

Because DNA is inheritable, it actually contains an extreme wealth of information concerning our ancient ancestors. Going back all the way to "first life" even.

I'm guessing that not even in Darwin's wildest dreams could he have expected that DNA would provide such extensive and detailed information concerning our evolutionary past. Right down to the molecular level even.

The genetic record is so vast and so solid.... all fossils in museums, universities and even those still in the ground, could be whiped from the planet today and evolution theory would remain as solid as ever, simply because of the supporting evidence we uncovered from genetic analysis.

Fossils are nice and can teach us all kind of things. And they surely support evolution theory.

Genetics however, does much more then just "support" it, in that sense.
Genetics, is simply knock-down evidence in support of evolution. Smoking gun evidence if you will.

It's the genetic record that makes people like Francis Collins say that "Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person."

 

[Almost there]

That is simply because of your ignorance and bias. Here is a little test for you, is there any reliable evidence to the contrary? Your personal interpretation of the Bible does not count as being reliable.



There are no valid authorities that oppose this. Once again, people that base their beliefs upon their personal interpretation of the Bible are not authorities.



Really? I have yet to see a valid authority that opposes the theory.




And this shows that I was correct in all of my statements. One does not have to be there. The ID side does not have an explanation. You have been lied to. And you do not appear to understand the nature of evidence either. But stick with your false beliefs. You and yours are slowly going extinct, every year more and more people accept reality.

This is the general response I expected. To which I say, I disagree.

Opinions vary. Thanks so much for sharing yours!

 

[DogmaHunter]

As a creationist I am far from agreeing with Meyer on the age of the earth or the necessity of macroevolution as an explanatory paradigm per see. But he gives a good overview of the Cambrian Explosion discussion and raises interesting and well communicated questions in his book. All truthes need testing in the end.

I have to ask though....

As a creationist and opposer to "macro evolution".... why are you talking about the cambrian explosion? Do you think the cambrian explosion actually happened?

Because I don't see how an event after which loads of "macro evolution" needs to take place to take those primitive "phyla" and evolve it into the millions upon millions of species that exist today (and the many more millions that went extinct since then), would fit into some creationist worldview.

 

[Almost there]

DNA.

Fossils support evolution theory in the sense that the ones we find make sense. ie, we're not finding rabbits next to trilobites for example.

But fossils are, obviously, very limited in supply. Of some periods we have as good as no fossils at all. Not because the periods didn't exist, but because, as said, creation a fossil is really hard. It's already a rare event to have hard bodies fossilize. It shouldn't even need any explaining why it would be even rarer / harder to have fossils of soft bodies that are even hundreds of million years older.

It simply is not reasonable to expect to find such ancient bodies while being preserved well enough to analyse them in some kind of comparative study. Not to say that it would be absolutely ridiculous to expect such....

Fossils are very hard to come by and it is in fact amazing that we have as many as we do.

The real smoking gun evidence for evolution, the kind of evidence that makes devout christian scientists like Francis Collins say that no reasonable mind could doubt it while staying intellectually honest, is the evidence we find in DNA.

Because DNA is inheritable, it actually contains an extreme wealth of information concerning our ancient ancestors. Going back all the way to "first life" even.

I'm guessing that not even in Darwin's wildest dreams could he have expected that DNA would provide such extensive and detailed information concerning our evolutionary past. Right down to the molecular level even.

The genetic record is so vast and so solid.... all fossils in museums, universities and even those still in the ground, could be whiped from the planet today and evolution theory would remain as solid as ever, simply because of the supporting evidence we uncovered from genetic analysis.

Fossils are nice and can teach us all kind of things. And they surely support evolution theory.

Genetics however, does much more then just "support" it, in that sense.
Genetics, is simply knock-down evidence in support of evolution. Smoking gun evidence if you will.

It's the genetic record that makes people like Francis Collins say that "Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person."

Kinda interesting. For me, DNA supports ID more than evolution. Both sides can make a case for how it proves their position, because both are technically possible.

 

[Speedwell]

Kinda interesting. For me, DNA supports ID more than evolution. Both sides can make a case for how it proves their position, because both are technically possible.

I don't know about ID. It is technically possible, but to me it is an attempt to replace God the creator of the universe and all it contains with God the incompetent tinkerer--for political reasons which don't bear close scrutiny.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Before you spend too much time digging up scholarly articles on evidence for microevolution I must say that I agree with these findings. There were not 43 species of sparrow on the ark yet "speciation" has occurred rapidly since the flood. The world of dogs and apes has a similar diversity. Even mankind shares DNA with Neanderthals. But these linkages do not prove the type to type evolution implicit in the mythological tree of life diagram.

what "type to type"? What does that mean?

Give a specific example, perhaps.

The ability to generalise from what is known to what is not known is the issue here.

Here's something that is known....

If a retrovirus inserts itself into germline cells, it becomes an inheritable ERV. This could be seen like some genetic "scar" that gets inherited by off spring.

Insertion spot is pretty random.

There are some 3000-ish known such virusses.
Potential insertion spots are theoretically some 3 billion places in humanoids.

In other words, for the same virus to insert itself in the same place twice, the theoretical probability is 1 in 3000*3 billion.

So it's pretty safe to say that if 2 individuals (let alone entire species) share an identical ERV, then those individuals had a common ancestor in which the actual infection took place.

We share many, many, many identical ERV's with chimps and other primates.

That's known. That's fact.

The obvious conclusion suggested by this data is...................

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the general response I expected. To which I say, I disagree.

Opinions vary. Thanks so much for sharing yours!

Of course you disagree, but I have facts and evidence, all you have are opinions. You are projecting your faults upon others. It is a typical tactic. Perhaps it would help if you learned what is and what is not evidence. I have yet to see a creationist that understands the concept. And most are too afraid to even discuss it. That there is no evidence for your side is the main reason that you always lose in courts of law. It is not because of bias of judges. In fact your only hope is to find an ignorant and biased judge. The Dover trial was an excellent case in point. A rather conservative judge, the dream judge of the ID side presided over the case. He found the ID side totally lacking in substance.

Judges understand evidence. You should watch the PBS docudrama on it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kinda interesting. For me, DNA supports ID more than evolution. Both sides can make a case for how it proves their position, because both are technically possible.

Once again seriously they can't. They can't pass the relatively low bar of peer review. DNA supports evolution and only evolution.

You do also realize the "ID" is a very vague term, don't you? IDists range from people simply trying to hide their mythical beliefs to people that accept the fact of common descent, but try to argue that God had to have a hand in it. What sort are you? Do you accept that you are an ape? If not you are not really an IDist, you are just a creationist that is trying to play scientist at best.

 

[Almost there]

Of course you disagree, but I have facts and evidence, all you have are opinions. You are projecting your faults upon others. It is a typical tactic. Perhaps it would help if you learned what is and what is not evidence. I have yet to see a creationist that understands the concept. And most are too afraid to even discuss it. That there is no evidence for your side is the main reason that you always lose in courts of law. It is not because of bias of judges. In fact your only hope is to find an ignorant and biased judge. The Dover trial was an excellent case in point. A rather conservative judge, the dream judge of the ID side presided over the case. He found the ID side totally lacking in substance.

Judges understand evidence. You should watch the PBS docudrama on it.

My experience has been that those really steeped in evolution research don't spend time arguing in places like this.

YMMV.

 

[Almost there]

Once again seriously they can't. They can't pass the relatively low bar of peer review. DNA supports evolution and only evolution.

You do also realize the "ID" is a very vague term, don't you? IDists range from people simply trying to hide their mythical beliefs to people that accept the fact of common descent, but try to argue that God had to have a hand in it. What sort are you? Do you accept that you are an ape? If not you are not really an IDist, you are just a creationist that is trying to play scientist at best.

Peer review? You crack me up.

I've learned not to trust it on anything controversial. It does have its place, but only in a "second opinion" way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Kinda interesting. For me, DNA supports ID more than evolution.

You can say that, but you can not rationally argue that.

Evolution theory makes loads of very specific predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in DNA. And it matches like a glove.

Most of these very specific predictions are also the exact opposite of what we would expect from a "creation" process that does not use evolutionary mechanisms.

So the expectations of "creation" are NOT in accordance with what we observe.
What we observe, meets the expectations of evolution theory perfectly.

It's rather obvious what that means.

Both sides can make a case for how it proves their position, because both are technically possible.

Nope.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Peer review? You crack me up.

I've learned not to trust it on anything controversial. It does have its place, but only in a "second opinion" way.

Evolution theory isn't controversial at all, actually, in scientific circles.

It's not like we're talking about multi-verses or string theory.....

Evolution theory is about as "controversial" as germ theory of desease, plate tectonics or atomic theory.

 

[Belk]

Peer review? You crack me up.

I've learned not to trust it on anything controversial. It does have its place, but only in a "second opinion" way.

Yes, who needs all that science in their science?

 

[Almost there]

You can say that, but you can not rationally argue that.

Evolution theory makes loads of very specific predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in DNA. And it matches like a glove.

Most of these very specific predictions are also the exact opposite of what we would expect from a "creation" process that does not use evolutionary mechanisms.

So the expectations of "creation" are NOT in accordance with what we observe.
What we observe, meets the expectations of evolution theory perfectly.

It's rather obvious what that means.



Nope.

I disagree. I see creation in everything around me. And one problem with evolution theory is that, for me, though it is very interesting and shows how life is flexible, I can't take it as anything more than an hypothesis until it gets past the hurdle of having zero explanation for Abiogenesis.

I remember reading articles decades ago about how RNA may have formed, and then DNA from it. but the challenge was that the same process that formed it would instantly destroy it, if it were even possible to form it in the first place.

So, I have no problem with all this evolution stuff. It's cool and fun. However, when speaking of things that "evolved" before the dawn of man, I prefer nothing be stated as fact, but, rather, prefaced with "many scientists believe".

Paste those words in front of any claim about things not witnessed by any mane recording the event and I'm good with whatever you say*.

*assuming many scientists DO believe it.

 

[Almost there]

Yes, who needs all that science in their science?

Science is great. It's the junk science that bothers me.

There is also a problem many are facing where they can't get their work peer reviewed, though it deserves it. There is no small amount of blacklisting going on in the junk sciences, the two major ones being Evolution and AGW, now called climate change since the models are hopelessly wrong.

 

[Almost there]

You can say that, but you can not rationally argue that.

Evolution theory makes loads of very specific predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in DNA. And it matches like a glove.

I get that. Ptolomy's model of the solar system also matched like a glove. Until it didn't.

And not to put too fine a point on it, it DOES not match like a glove. It's why the hypotheses/theories keep changing and getting refined, just like Ptolomy's did, until he finally had to throw the whole thing out.

So sure, what we observe and predict is accurate insomuch as it applies to what we are seeing right now. How it applies to things that happened before men witnessed and recorded it is the realm of hypothesis. One can say it happened as they describe it, but they need to remind the reader that it is just their informed opinion.

I think one of the problems here is that I don't really have any "special" respect for scientists. They are like the rest of us. They have areas in which they are talented and many exploit those talents to their fullest, as they should, just like those talented in music, engineering, art, etc. But I see this world as "God's ant farm". I means that though I see them as very knowledgeable in their field, and perhaps smarter than all the other ants, at the end of the day, they are still just an ant. And they cannot comprehend even the simplest of tasks, like brewing a nice cup of coffee.

So with all of this talk about evolution, I consider the source.

 

[Belk]

Science is great. It's the junk science that bothers me.

There is also a problem many are facing where they can't get their work peer reviewed, though it deserves it. There is no small amount of blacklisting going on in the junk sciences, the two major ones being Evolution and AGW, now called climate change since the models are hopelessly wrong.

I do not find you a credible voice to speak about the entirety of human scientific endeavors. I'll go with the actual scientists whom seem to have a really good track record so far.

 

[Almost there]

Evolution theory isn't controversial at all, actually, in scientific circles.

I actually agree with that statement at a high level. It's interesting, but this has something in common with some differences of opinion Christians have regarding the bible.

To wit: I had a man I was arguing with finally lift up his big KJV bible and say, "I believe what the Word of God says.", to which I replied, "So do I. Where we differ is on interpretation."

Same with this. It's not that we disagree in the concept of evolution of some sort being proven before our very eyes (key words, "some sort"). Rather we seem to disagree on the implications of the solid discoveries. And to further narrow it down, the implications that can never be proven without a DeLorean with a Mr Fusion can never be presented as anything more than hypothesis.

So, my issue is not with evolution theory of any kind. Rather, it is with how it is presented in regards to events that happened before there were any humans around to record them.

 

[Almost there]

I do not find you a credible voice to speak about the entirety of human scientific endeavors. I'll go with the actual scientists whom seem to have a really good track record so far.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Belk]

I wouldn't have it any other way.