How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Brightmoon]

Yeah yeah I know all us scientifically literate people sound alike

 

[inquiring mind]

How do you explain the fossil record? This is not a rhetorical question; I want you to answer it in as much detail as possible.

While you’re researching exactly what the fossil record is, let me go ahead and say you will not find where it has provided any supporting evidence for slow, gradual, detailed changes from one kind to another kind. There are no such “detailed changes,” beyond general “simple to more developed” specific forms of life, which no doubt fuels macroevolution speculation. The Cambrian Explosion shows major life forms bursting onto the scene in a relatively short time, which counters the idea of slow transitions.

 

[Brightmoon]

While you’re researching exactly what the fossil record is, let me go ahead and say you will not find where it has provided any supporting evidence for slow, gradual, detailed changes from one kind to another kind. There are no such “detailed changes,” beyond general “simple to more developed” specific forms of life, which no doubt fuels macroevolution speculation. The Cambrian Explosion shows major life forms bursting onto the scene in a relatively short time, which counters the idea of slow transitions.

The “short” time of the Cambrian explosion lasted 10 million years at a minimum. In some places it lasted 25 million years. There were also almost 3 billion years of life before the Cambrian

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

The “short” time of the Cambrian explosion lasted 10 million years at a minimum. In some places it lasted 25 million years

Quite impossible.

 

[Brightmoon]

Quite impossible.

. You’ve got a vivid imagination there , son ! What about the almost 3 billion years of life before the Cambrian . Life’s been on this planet for 3,800 million years ! That’s 3.8 billion . The Cambrian was about 500 million years ago

 

[pitabread]

While you’re researching exactly what the fossil record is, let me go ahead and say you will not find where it has provided any supporting evidence for slow, gradual, detailed changes from one kind to another kind.

Considering that "kind" has no biological definition, of course you won't. Your premise is GIGO.

Now if you are looking for transitions between actual taxonomic levels (e.g. species, genus, family, etc), those you will find in the fossil record.

The Cambrian Explosion shows major life forms bursting onto the scene in a relatively short time, which counters the idea of slow transitions.

The Cambrian explosion is a relatively short period of time geologically speaking. It still represents millions of years of evolution.

There is also ongoing debate as to how much of an explosion it really was given the prior existence of multicellular biological organisms.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

. You’ve got a vivid imagination there , son ! What about the almost 3 billion years of life before the Cambrian . Life’s been on this planet for 3,800 million years ! That’s 3.8 billion . The Cambrian was about 500 million years ago

"Son?"

You can't jam 3.8 billion years of life into the universe's age of 6,000 years.

 

[Brightmoon]

While you’re researching exactly what the fossil record is, let me go ahead and say you will not find where it has provided any supporting evidence for slow, gradual, detailed changes from one kind to another kind. There are no such “detailed changes,” beyond general “simple to more developed” specific forms of life, which no doubt fuels macroevolution speculation. (Snip)

Here’s just the whales with all of those transitionals . Pakicetus is at the top . For most lineages we have this type of detail . In genera we see individual traits change over species . For example the hind legs of these whales gradually become vestigial and in some lineages disappear completely . This from Cell which is a scientific RESEARCH magazine. You know the type that creationists don’t publish

 

[inquiring mind]

The “short” time of the Cambrian explosion lasted 10 million years at a minimum. In some places it lasted 25 million years. There were also almost 3 billion years of life before the Cambrian

My point was: “Where is the evidence of the slow transitions from simple forms?”

 

[AV1611VET]

And the theory of evolution would become one of those, if you could come up with evidence against it. Got any?

Missing links.

 

[Brightmoon]

My point was: “Where is the evidence of the slow transitions from simple forms?”

. I’m not sure what you mean . In Polyploid speciation the offspring are another species that can’t mate with the parents species. Not all speciation ( macroevolution) is gradual . If you mean how did eucaryotes become multicellular; that took over a billion years and also involved joining with an alpha proteobacterial symbiont inside the cell

This is where creationist misuse of scientific terminology is confusing .

 

[inquiring mind]

I’m not sure what you mean .

I was referring to the lack of observable physical evidence (as in a detailed fossil transition) of a change from one kind to another, which obviously doesn’t exist. This is why I keep referring to your terminology and charts as scientific speculation.

In Polyploid speciation the offspring are another species that can’t mate with the parents species. Not all speciation ( macroevolution) is gradual .

I’m not sure that barriers to reproduction and the inability to reproduce are really the same in the scheme of things (when it comes to variations of kind). And it certainly doesn’t mean macroevolution is taking place. This seems contrary, more like the reduction of genes, rather than say, the addition of two amino acids to the FoxP2 gene that came from ‘out of the blue’ to make us human (example).

If you mean how did eucaryotes become multicellular; that took over a billion years and also involved joining with an alpha proteobacterial symbiont inside the cell

Of course, the process is not observable… more speculation.

This is where creationist misuse of scientific terminology is confusing .

Actually, the confusion came about when science’s classification system changed the meanings of species and genus so that they no longer equated with the biblical kind and variations. I think we have discussed this previously.

 

[Brightmoon]

I was referring to the lack of observable physical evidence (as in a detailed fossil transition) of a change from one kind to another, which obviously doesn’t exist. This is why I keep referring to your terminology and charts as scientific speculation.


I’m not sure that barriers to reproduction and the inability to reproduce are really the same in the scheme of things (when it comes to variations of kind). And it certainly doesn’t mean macroevolution is taking place. This seems contrary, more like the reduction of genes, rather than say, the addition of two amino acids to the FoxP2 gene that came from ‘out of the blue’ to make us human (example).


Of course, the process is not observable… more speculation.


Actually, the confusion came about when science’s classification system changed the meanings of species and genus so that they no longer equated with the biblical kind and variations. I think we have discussed this previously.

. This is where creationists lies and obfuscation mixed with your scientific illiteracy fail you . I gave you a single lineage , the whales ,where that has already happened. You ignored it! Of course I could give you several others but you’d make up some phony excuse as to why you don’t accept them too. And keep in mind that the gaps in the fossil record are filled in with genetics. We found out that whales were Artiodactyla from genetics years before we found protowhales with legs

One definition of species that especially applies to vertebrates is the ability or inability to produce fertile offspring from a mating .

Plastid endosymbiosis has been observed in living organisms. So the alpha proteobacteria that originated mitochondria is a fact . Of course there is plenty of other evidence that confirms that like the fact that the inner membrane is bacterial and the outer is eucaryotic .

 

[Brightmoon]

The classification system changed because there was no real good organised way of classifying life before Linnaeus . Had very little to do with creationist pseudoscience. Even Linnaeus hinted around in his private letters that he thought it was common descent. Of course living in the 1700s he didn’t dare make that public .

 

[Brightmoon]

"Son?"

You can't jam 3.8 billion years of life into the universe's age of 6,000 years.

I’m way older than you
Geology isn’t one of your strong points I guess

 

[Subduction Zone]

Missing links.

Nope, try again.

 

[pitabread]

I was referring to the lack of observable physical evidence (as in a detailed fossil transition) of a change from one kind to another, which obviously doesn’t exist.

"Kind" is still not a biological term. You're just arguing a strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Son?"

You can't jam 3.8 billion years of life into the universe's age of 6,000 years.

You can't jam this into a period of 6,000 years:

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind" is still not a biological term.

Either that, or it is.

You can't jam this into a period of 6,000 years:

God can.

 

[Speedwell]

Either that, or it is.God can.

If it is a biological term it will have a definition. What is it?