Evolution happens

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

No, not the same observations, new observations. PE was proposed to explain the sudden appearance of fossils with no apparent steadily evolving predecessors, suggesting rapid evolution. The theory implies and predicts that there should be lineages showing long periods of relative evolutionary stasis punctuated with rapid evolution. Such periods of stasis have been observed in the fossil record.

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.

Incorrect; rapid evolution has been observed often - for example, antibiotic resistance and the topical SARS-CoV-2 virus; it's been observed in birds in the Galapagos islands (speciation), in fish in polluted rivers, and many other instances. The timescale of human observation is not generally sufficient to observe major morphological changes, but speciation has been observed:

Evidence from Observed Speciation
Watching speciation Occur: Observations
Speciation Observed - Again
Speciation in a Lab Flask
Speciation of Wasps Observed
8 Examples of Evolution in Action

However, the fossil record covers geological timescales, so 'sudden' means tens or hundreds of thousands of years rather than millions of years. Over these timescales, lots of relatively small changes can accumulate into major 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.

As already explained, that's not the case.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

Hmm... I just realised that we have a poster who is simultaneously using 300 thousand years as an impossibly long time and 40 times longer as an instant explosion.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

Yep, it took sooooo long that paleontologists called it an "explosion".

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

S. J. Gould said it was 5 million years.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yep, it took sooooo long that paleontologists called it an "explosion".

They also call the Big Bang a bang when it wasn't.

S. J. Gould said it was 5 million years.

And it's amazing that science doesn't begin or end with one single scientist's words.

 

[Shemjaza]

S. J. Gould said it was 5 million years.

Do you now believe in Gould's conclusions?

 

[ruthiesea]

Do you know the difference between anatomical modernity and behavioural modernity?



Except Humans have been:

Wearing clothes for at least 150,000 years
Making jewelry for at least 90,000 years
Making glues for at least 70,000 years
Making art for at least 65,00 0 years
Playing music for at least 50,000 years
Weaving for at least 35,000 years
Making ceramics for at least 28,000 years
Planting fields for at least 23,000 years
Domesticating animals for at least 16,000 years
Doing dentistry for at least 9,000 years
Smelting metals and making bricks for at least 7,000 years

Either all of this happened before humans "suddenly became brainy", or your potted hypothesis is incorrect.

And we suddenly became more brainy in the last 100 years during which we made more discoveries & created more inventions than in the previous, according to you, 6000 years. Is that a problem for you? So, the answer to your question is yes.

 

[ottawak]

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.

You seem to be laboring under the egregious assumption that a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis would rule out divine creation. It does not, and that has been a settled matter of Roman Catholic theology for centuries. Where have you been?

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to be laboring under the egregious assumption that a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis would rule out divine creation. It does not,

If that's true, how many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

 

[Astrophile]

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", evolutionnews.org)

Your link - "In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude | Evolution News - took me to an article by Jonathan Wells that begins ''In February 1999, I had arranged for a talk at the University of Washington for Jun-Yuan Chen". There have been some advances in palaeontology during the last 23 years, and they have led to a better understanding of the 'Cambrian explosion'. You should read more up-to-date information about the subject.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yep, it took sooooo long that paleontologists called it an "explosion".

'Explosion' refers more to the diversification than to the timescale - the timescale was relatively rapid, but it was the 'explosion' of variety that was notable.

 

[Gene2memE]

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

There really isn't. Not for the reasons I suspect you believe though. Stem group relationships with soft bodied animals are difficult (due to a paucity of well preserved fossils), but researchers have learned more in the last 20 years about the pre-Cambrian/Cambrian transition than they did in the previous 120.

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

Spriggina, Parvancorina, Spinospitella, several of the Radiodonta.

If a clear evolutionary ancestor of trilobites was discovered in the early Cambrian - perhaps late Fortunian/early stage 2 preserved soft body fossils, for instance - would that change your mind about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

 

[Astrid]

No, not the same observations, new observations. PE was proposed to explain the sudden appearance of fossils with no apparent steadily evolving predecessors, suggesting rapid evolution. The theory implies and predicts that there should be lineages showing long periods of relative evolutionary stasis punctuated with rapid evolution. Such periods of stasis have been observed in the fossil record.

Incorrect; rapid evolution has been observed often - for example, antibiotic resistance and the topical SARS-CoV-2 virus; it's been observed in birds in the Galapagos islands (speciation), in fish in polluted rivers, and many other instances. The timescale of human observation is not generally sufficient to observe major morphological changes, but speciation has been observed:

Evidence from Observed Speciation
Watching speciation Occur: Observations
Speciation Observed - Again
Speciation in a Lab Flask
Speciation of Wasps Observed
8 Examples of Evolution in Action

However, the fossil record covers geological timescales, so 'sudden' means tens or hundreds of thousands of years rather than millions of years. Over these timescales, lots of relatively small changes can accumulate into major changes.

As already explained, that's not the case.

You are more patient than I

 

[SelfSim]

If that's true, how many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

Well its not really a matter of how many acts .. following this part:

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well its not really a matter of how many acts .. following this part:

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

That's Genesis 2.

I'd like to know how many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

 

[SelfSim]

That's Genesis 2.

I'd like to know how many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

Well its not my fault someone got in and tweaked the original version.

Howz this, then(?):
Genesis 1:
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

[Buzzard3]

You seem to be laboring under the egregious assumption that a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis would rule out divine creation. It does not, and that has been a settled matter of Roman Catholic theology for centuries. Where have you been?

A naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis? Now that's funny! Puny humans have got ZERO chance of ever explaining it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Howz this, then(?):

Evasive.

I'm looking for a number, but I'm getting letters of the alphabet.

In other words, standard academic.

 

[ottawak]

A naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis? Now that's funny! Puny humans have got ZERO chance of ever explaining it.

So what? Science may never find out all there is to know about the natural world, but if there was a natural explanation for the origin of life it would not rule out divine causality.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm looking for a number, but I'm getting letters of the alphabet.

Once is sufficient.