Evolution happens

[Gene2memE]

The Cambrian Explosion (CE) disproves the Theory of Evolution (ToE) in one fell swoop, for the following reasons:

1. ToE predicts that any multicellular organism will be preceded by evolutionary ancestors. However, all of the animals that appeared during the CE did so fully-formed, with no evidence of evolutionary links to ancestors.

There is fossil evidence of pre-Cambian life forms, but there exists no fossil evidence of evolutionary links between them and the Cambrian biota.

You might want to check out the stem-group relationships of the following:

Cnidarians
Protostomes
Arthropods
Porifera
Echinoderms
Brachiopods

To make matters worse (for ToE), fossil evidence suggests that the Ediacaran biota that preceded the Cambrian suffered a mass extinction.

Why does this make matters worse?

Likewise, there is no evidence of evolutionary links between the "small, shelly fauna" (that appeared after the Ediacaran biota and at the very beginning of the Cambrian) and the explosion of animal forms that appeared later in the Cambrian.

Yes, there are: https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app39/app39-247.pdf

Gradual replacement of the Cambrian coeloscleritophoran-monoplacophoran associations by Ordovician machaeridian-gastropod and then by Silurian and later bivalve-gastropod dominated ones is evident in the series of the Meishucun-, Mójcza-, and Kok-type faunas.

This is followed by a reduction in diversity of associated organisms, starting with the anabaritids (possibly of trilobozoan or nemathelminthan affinities), through tornrnotiids (possible machaeridians), palaeoscolecid priapulids, hyoliths (with monoplacophoran-cephalopod relationships), octactinellid and receptaculitid sponges, and then the septemchitonid polyplacophorans.​

 

[Buzzard3]

Abiogenesis has been detached from biological evolution* and placed into another subcategory of cosmic evolution: Chemical Evolution.

Yes.

That way, they only have to debate "survival of species," not "arrival of species."

Exactly. Most are reluctant to discuss abogenesis because it's too difficult to defend rationally.

But evolution is a different matter ... evolutionist think they're on a sure-fire winner with this one ... the evidence is (apparently) overwhelming. I mean, if a sausage dog evolved from a wolf, only an idiot would deny that a human couldn't evolve from a fish!

 

[Buzzard3]

Ah yes, The capital IF presupposition.
Now you just need to to show that a human CAN evolve from a fish

I don't have to ... it's Darwinists who need to show that a human can evolve from a fish.

 

[Buzzard3]

It can over time. There have to be sufficient genetic changes for science to create a new family category. However, the family Canidae will still be in it’s family tree as well as Canidae genes.

What I mean by a "non-dog" is an organism that doesn't belong to the Family Canidae.

 

[Buzzard3]

The theory is compatible with life on Earth deriving from more than one original ancestor - life could have arisen independently more than once. But if that were the case, we'd expect some fundamental differences between the different branches arising from each original ancestor.

Whether there was one original ancestor or whether there were more than one, wouldn't the collective evolutionary outcomes look the same?

I ask this because it is the environment that determines the direction(s) evolution takes, so the collective evolutionary outcome of one common ancestor would look exactly the same as the collective evolutionary outcome of more than one original ancestors, wouldn't it?

 

[Buzzard3]

As long as you're not warm and fuzzy on the outside...

Biologically speaking, like all humans, you are an ape.

The problem is, evolution can't account for the massive difference between the mental capacity of humans and that of the other apes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't have to ... it's Darwinists who need to show that a human can evolve from a fish.

Already been done.

The evolution from lobe-finned fish to quadrapeds to mammals to primates to apes to humans is well documented.

 

[Buzzard3]

A theory involving long-term evolution often can't be tested directly, but they can be tested indirectly, by checking their predictions, i.e. if the theory is correct, we'd expect to find X, Y, & Z in the world.

Which part of the theory of evolution predicts that a bacteria will evolve into an animal?

Would you expect to find a human evolving from a fish, according to ToE?

How do you test the theory that a human evolved from a fish via a process of mutations and natural selection? I would say that's impossible.

Punctuated equilibrium has been tested this way both in the fossil record and in living animals, and its predictions hold good.

Really? The theory of Punctuated Equilbrium is based on observations in the fossil record ... and it's tested by the very same observations in the fossils record? That's not a test, it's just circular reasoning.

PE attempts to explain macroevolutionary trends in the fossil record - how can such long-term (millions of years) macroevolution be observed in "living animals"?

Not really. Understanding evolution has enabled many advances, particularly in medicine, agriculture, and technology, including new antibiotics and vaccines, cancer treatments, crop breeding, pest & disease resistance and control, and computational design using evolutionary algorithms.

I'm not talking about empirical evolution; I'm talking about evolutionary theories about what supposdly happened millions of years ago, most of which it seems can't be tested, which means such theories don't even qualify as science.

Any fool can theorize about what might have happened eons ago, but if a theory can't be tested, it's just hot air and worthless as science.

 

[Buzzard3]

I did answer your question. I said: Because that's how biology works. An animal cannot change the Family it is in. A cat cannot become a dog. It can become dog-like, but it will never be a true dog because it cannot change from Felindae to Canidae. Biology does not work like that.

If bacteria can evolve into non-bacteria (eg, a human), I can't see why a dog can't evolve into a non-dog.

 

[Buzzard3]

There are inhabited cities that are more than 10,000 years old.

Yes well, they'd have to say that, wouldn't they, if humans have existed for 300,000 years?

Humans are 300,000 years old, but they only started inventing stuff 4000-5000 years ago. Funny that.

 

[Buzzard3]

Why does this make matters worse?

If all Ediacaran biota became extinct, what's left to evolve?

 

[Buzzard3]

Already been done.

The evolution from lobe-finned fish to quadrapeds to mammals to primates to apes to humans is well documented.

No one can "show" that humans can evolve from fish. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record, but an explanation doesn't "show" or prove anything.

Besides that, the "best scientific explanation" doesn't mean anything to me ... not when there's a God out there, wandering around performing miracles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes well, they'd have to say that, wouldn't they, if humans have existed for 300,000 years?

Who are "they"?

Archeology isn't some sort of conspiracy to make the 6000-year-old Earth people look foolish.

Humans are 300,000 years old, but they only started inventing stuff 4000-5000 years ago. Funny that.

There is all kinds of technology that is more than 5000 years old. Like clothing, stone tools, agriculture, etc.

Start here:

Prehistoric technology - Wikipedia

 

[Gene2memE]

If all Ediacaran biota became extinct, what's left to evolve?

Mass extinction does not mean total extinction.

There are multiple species in the fossil record that cross the Ediacaran/Cambrian boundary (some for several million years on each side). There are also Cambrian organisms that have stem groups in the late Ediacaran.

The two phases of the Cambrian Explosion | Scientific Reports

It is hypothesised that the Ediacaran extinction event is a replacement and radiation (older species disappearing due to predation/expansion into new niches) rather than a catastrophic extinction event.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes well, they'd have to say that, wouldn't they, if humans have existed for 300,000 years?

Humans are 300,000 years old, but they only started inventing stuff 4000-5000 years ago. Funny that.

Spears, jewelry, burials, artistic objects objects... probably religion... all much, much older than 5000 years.

It's not an impressive argument: "Humans have been working metal for thousands of years, but only built electronics for a century, funny that."

It's silly.

 

[Shemjaza]

No one can "show" that humans can evolve from fish. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record, but an explanation doesn't "show" or prove anything..

How is "best scientific explanation" not showing? It's an explanation of demonstrable evidence... not just a story.

Besides that, the "best scientific explanation" doesn't mean anything to me ... not when there's a God out there, wandering around performing miracles.

Why isn't that demonstrated by evidence?

Even if it's one of those ideas that are only visible to believers, why can't you even demonstrate it to all the sincere Christians who accept scientific evidence?

 

[Shemjaza]

If bacteria can evolve into non-bacteria (eg, a human), I can't see why a dog can't evolve into a non-dog.

Because they didn't humans are still Eukaryotes, still Sarcopterygii, still amniotes, still mammals, still primates, still apes, still hominids.

 

[Shemjaza]

I agree 100%. But you're barking up the wrong tree and misrepresenting my position. The "useless" evolutionary theories I was referring to are those concerning origins - you know, what supposedly happened millions of years ago. I was not referring to the practical and useful empirical evolution that you've alluded to.

I used Gould's musings as an examplar of useless evo-theories ... his pseudo-scientific stories contributed nothing whatsoever to applied science.

You deny science. Don't try to pretend that your personal conviction trumps evidence.

Common ancestry and punctured equilibrium are supported by evidence.


Why don't you clarify what you believe?

You keep bringing up the Cambrian explosion. Do you believe it was a real event?
Do you believe in the physics and geology that demonstrate the age of the Earth and Universe?
Do you believe in the astronomy that demonstrates the scale of the universe?
DO you believe in the astro-engineering that allowed for all the probes, satellites and space craft?

 

[Shemjaza]

The problem is, evolution can't account for the massive difference between the mental capacity of humans and that of the other apes.

Humans have much bigger more complicated brains than other apes... but we also have a whole lot of transitional fossils demonstrating this change.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Depends what you mean by "evolution".

How do you test the theory, for example, that eyes evolved via a process of mutations and natural selection?

See, it's saying things like "Depends what you mean by "evolution"" That really makes me think that you aren't here to talk in good faith.