Evolution happens

[Astrophile]

I understand.

Matthew 21:23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

I know that this is off-topic, but if the chief priests and the elders had answered the question one way or the other, they could have insisted that Jesus should answer their question first rather than asking another one.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know that this is off-topic, but if the chief priests and the elders had answered the question one way or the other, they could have insisted that Jesus should answer their question first rather than asking another one.

And Jesus would have answered them.

Just like here ...

Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

 

[Astrophile]

And Jesus would have answered them.

Just like here ...

Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

In Matthew 21:24 Jesus said that he would tell the chief priests and the elders by what authority he did these things if they answered his question. In any case, the chief priests' question was simple enough, and Jesus ought to have been able to answer it.

 

[AV1611VET]

In Matthew 21:24 Jesus said that he would tell the chief priests and the elders by what authority he did these things if they answered his question. In any case, the chief priests' question was simple enough, and Jesus ought to have been able to answer it.

Matthew 21:24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

QV please:

Our Lord was certainly under no obligation to answer their question: he had already given them such proofs of his Divine mission as could not possibly be exceeded, in the miracles which he wrought before their eyes, and before all Judea; and, as they would not credit him on this evidence, it would have been in vain to have expected their acknowledgment of him on any profession he would make.

He replied not in a direct manner, but by asking them a question of a similar character; proposing, that if they would answer him, he would reply to their question, and intending, probably, that the just and proper reply to his question would be the reply to theirs, and thus leading them to answer themselves.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know that this is off-topic, but if the chief priests and the elders had answered the question one way or the other, they could have insisted that Jesus should answer their question first rather than asking another one.

The priests and elders were the law and order of 1st century Israel -- they would have no reason to humor the latest (as far as they knew) nutcase bucking for "messiah."

For a modern-day parallel, try talking back to the cop when he writes you a speeding ticket and see how well that goes.

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, PE (Punctated Equilibrim) was proposed to explain the 'sudden' appearance of species in the fossil record, and is generally thought to have been rather exaggerated by Gould. But it has been tested in the fossil record by finding fossils that did, as it predicts, change very little over evolutionary timescales

So you're saying the very same observations in the fossil record that gave rise to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium are used to test it? If so, that is not a test; it's just a dumb circular argument.

The main explanation for periods of relative evolutionary stasis is the lack of selective pressures, i.e. a consistent environment. Species change rapidly or go extinct when the environment changes relatively quickly. There are living creatures that have changed relatively little for millions of years and we find that they are either extremely adaptable (e.g. ants), or their environment has remained relatively stable for millions of years (e.g. oceanic fish, particularly deep ocean). We also find that relatively rapid environmental changes lead to rapid observable evolutionary changes.

Unfortunately for the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, there is no empirical evidence that suggests a sudden change in the environment will produce the macroevolutionary changes evident in the fossil record, much less sudden macroevolutionary changes.

So, to sum up, if PE cannot be tested by the fossil, and lacks support in extant organisms, it's looks suspiciously like a dud theory and yet another case of Darwinist story-telling.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

There is a huge evolutionary gap between any Ediacaran biota/"small, shelly fauna" and the animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion.

Try finding anything that resembles a close evoluionary ancestor of a Trilobite, for example.

 

[Buzzard3]

Why isn't that demonstrated by evidence?

It is.
Exhibit A: The appearance of the first organisms.
Exhibit B: The Cambrian explosion.
Exhibit C: The sudden appearance of new species in the post-Cambrian fossil record.

These are all evidence of divine creation.

 

[Buzzard3]

deleted

 

[Buzzard3]

Here's something to consider: breeding animals to make them more docile is a form of evolutionary selection pressure. Over many generation, a population of animals can become easier to domesticate.

Just sayin'.

For starters, some wild dogs are naturally docile. And the breeding of more docile dogs from them did not take 490,000 years; in fact, producing a breed of docile dogs wouldn't take very long at all.

You don't need any evolutionary changes in pigs to keep them in a pen.

Just sayin'.

 

[Shemjaza]

It is.
Exhibit A: The appearance of the first organisms.

Extremely ancient evidence of very simple life forms... with an unevidenced and undefined mechanism.

Exhibit B: The Cambrian explosion.

Rapid variations on a geological scale, but still millions of years long process.... with an unevidenced and undefined mechanism.

Exhibit C: The sudden appearance of new species in the post-Cambrian fossil record.

Given that you are proposing an unevidenced and undefined mechanism, do you have a specific example where it would be reasonable to expect more evidence of transitions?

These are all evidence of divine creation.

Very poor evidence.

 

[ottawak]

These are all evidence of divine creation.

No more so than the theory of evolution itself.

 

[Buzzard3]

Unfortunately, yes, although I am opposed to abortion.

So you're pro-choice ... but you're opposed to abortion. Now I've heard it all! Sorry, but that don't make sense none.

At the present time, "pro choice" is the only politically viable alternative to the misogynistic excesses of the Christian Right.

Oh dear ... sounds like you've caught the Feminism virus.
Pray tell, what "misogynistic excesses of the Christian Right" are you referring to?

 

[ottawak]

So you're pro-choice ... but you're opposed to abortion. Now I've heard it all! Sorry, but that don't make sense none.

Oh dear ... sounds like you've caught the Feminism virus.
Pray tell, what "misogynistic excesses of the Christian Right" are you referring to?

You've just provided an example. But this is way off topic and is likely to get the thread pulled. I suggest we stick to the OP topic.

 

[Buzzard3]

No, it isn't, as I've repeatedly pointed out now. Testing under the scientific method is done for falsifiable predictions. You're making a strawman version of the scientific method.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it's possible to test the theory that the (perceived) evolution of the eye is due to selection acting on mutations. You accused me of inventing a "strawman version of the scientific method" and then proposed that "Testing under the scientific method is done for falsifiable predictions." But when I asked you, "Which theory predicts that mutations and selection will produce an eye?" (post 902), you failed to answer.

In other words, you're argument appears to have stalled.

So my question - How does one test the theory that the (perceived) evolution of the eye is due to selection acting on mutations? - has hitherto remained unanswered.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So you're pro-choice ... but you're opposed to abortion. Now I've heard it all! Sorry, but that don't make sense none.

He's against abortion... but he's more against against having the government ban it. Makes perfect sense to me.

Oh dear ... sounds like you've caught the Feminism virus.
Pray tell, what "misogynistic excesses of the Christian Right" are you referring to?

I think we all just witnessed one.

 

[Buzzard3]

You've just provided an example.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying opposing abortion is one of the "misogynistic excesses of the Christian Right"?

But this is way off topic and is likely to get the thread pulled. I suggest we stick to the OP topic.

Oh no; how disappointing! I was really looking forward to hearing more of your Fem-Dem wisdom.

 

[Buzzard3]

Extremely ancient evidence of very simple life forms... with an unevidenced and undefined mechanism.

I was referring to the appearance of the first organism from inanimate matter - abiogenesis - which is a scientific impossibility. It is clear scientific evidence of divine creation.

Rapid variations on a geological scale, but still millions of years long process.... with an unevidenced and undefined mechanism.

You may not find it puzzling, but many paleontogists and evolutionary scientists do.

Jun-Yuan Chen, a Chinese paleontologist who is an acknowledged expert on the Cambrian explosion, goes so far as to state that the Cambrian explosion contradicts Darwinian theory.

"In his February lecture at the Burke Museum of the University of Washington, Chen described many of the Chengjiang fossils and argued that their abrupt appearance in the early Cambrian was a problem for Darwinian evolution. Darwin’s theory predicts that minor taxonomic differences (such as species and genera) gradually evolve into larger differences (such as classes and phyla), whereas the fossils show that the phyla and many classes appeared first and then diversified into a variety of genera and species. Chen called this “top-down” evolution, to contrast it with the “bottom-up” evolution required by Darwin’s theory.

Afterwards, scientists in the audience asked him a lot of questions about specific fossils, but they completely avoided the topic of Darwinian evolution.

When Chen later asked me why, I told him that perhaps they were just being polite, because most American scientists disapprove of criticizing Darwinism. At that he laughed, and said: “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
( ""In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude", evolutionnws.org)

Given that you are proposing an unevidenced and undefined mechanism, do you have a specific example where it would be reasonable to expect more evidence of transitions?

What?

Very poor evidence.

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, they'll find a way ... despite any contrary evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

I was referring to the appearance of the first organism from inanimate matter - abiogenesis - which is a scientific impossibility. It is clear scientific evidence of divine creation.

It's a mystery... but "scientific impossibility" is a claim I guarantee you can't back up.

"We don't know" is not the same as "It's impossible", especially when there is absolutely evidence for research into abiogenesis.

We have the mechanisms of organic chemistry, we have the ability for the building blocks of life, amino acids, to be formed in presence of energy.

But, I could be wrong: can you actually demonstrate this alleged "scientific impossibility"?

You may not find it puzzling, but many paleontogists and evolutionary scientists do.

Jun-Yuan Chen, a Chinese paleontologist who is an acknowledged expert on the Cambrian explosion, goes so far as to state that the Cambrian explosion contradicts Darwinian theory.

"In his February lecture at the Burke Museum of the University of Washington, Chen described many of the Chengjiang fossils and argued that their abrupt appearance in the early Cambrian was a problem for Darwinian evolution. Darwin’s theory predicts that minor taxonomic differences (such as species and genera) gradually evolve into larger differences (such as classes and phyla), whereas the fossils show that the phyla and many classes appeared first and then diversified into a variety of genera and species. Chen called this “top-down” evolution, to contrast it with the “bottom-up” evolution required by Darwin’s theory.

Afterwards, scientists in the audience asked him a lot of questions about specific fossils, but they completely avoided the topic of Darwinian evolution.

When Chen later asked me why, I told him that perhaps they were just being polite, because most American scientists disapprove of criticizing Darwinism. At that he laughed, and said: “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
( ""In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude", evolutionnws.org)

Spare me more quotes and claims... evidence, actual evidence is what you keep implying, and never presenting.

What?

What you said was:
Exhibit C: The sudden appearance of new species in the post-Cambrian fossil record.

I'm asking for a specific example of a sudden appearance of a new species in a context where we would expect to find more evidence of transitions.

If it's one of your exhibits, please show it off.

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, they'll find a way ... despite any contrary evidence.

Your evidence seems to amount to if we don't know every detail of how a known mechanism has applied to a situation it's more reasonable to assume a totally unknown and unevidenced mechanism applies instead.

Fancy worded ways of saying "Well, you don't know it wasn't God" is very poor given then scorn you show and conviction you have in your alleged evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am amazed that there are people who think that the Cambrian Explosion is some sort of slam-dunk against evolution when the explosion covers a MASSIVE time frame of 13 to 25 MILLION years.

That is an enormous amount of time and more than long enough for new morphological forms and new animals to appear.