Evolution happens

[AV1611VET]

Once is sufficient.

College math:

Q: 2 + 2 = ?
A: 4th

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

Moot point. The appearance of the first organism was a miracle ... science has zero chance of explaining a miracle.

Even if scientists did come up with an "explanation", that would mean nothing unless they could actually produce a self-replicating organism from inanimate matter. Mission: Impossible.

 

[Shemjaza]

Moot point. The appearance of the first organism was a miracle ... science has zero chance of explaining a miracle.

Even if scientists did come up with an "explanation", that would mean nothing unless they could actually produce a self-replicating organism from inanimate matter. Mission: Impossible.

That is a remarkably inconsistent standard of evidence you have there.

A naturalistic explanation has to actually produce a working example of an organism... but miracles get to just be assumed?

 

[Buzzard3]

That is a remarkably inconsistent standard of evidence you have there.


A naturalistic explanation has to actually produce a working example of an organism... but miracles get to just be assumed?

No assumption involved. Abiogenesis not only defies explanation, it clearly represents a scientfic impossibility ... and therefore a miracle.

 

[Shemjaza]

No assumption involved. Abiogenesis not only defies explanation, it clearly represents a scientfic impossibility ... and therefore a miracle.

You've said "scientfic impossibility" before... are you willing to justify it yet?

 

[SelfSim]

A naturalistic explanation has to actually produce a working example of an organism... but miracles get to just be assumed?

.. (with the assumption behind the miracle there, being able to be demonstrated as being nothing more than a belief).

 

[SelfSim]

Abiogenesis not only defies explanation, it clearly represents a scientfic impossibility ...

Abiogenesis in science, are testable in principle hypotheses .. and therefore not physically impossible.

 

[SelfSim]

The appearance of the first organism was a miracle ... science has zero chance of explaining a miracle.

Science can demonstrate 'a miracle' as being nothing more than a belief though.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

What's changed in that time?

 

[Buzzard3]

Science can demonstrate 'a miracle' as being nothing more than a belief though.

Sometimes. But science will never demonstrate that abiogenesis is not a miracle.

 

[SelfSim]

But science will never demonstrate that abiogenesis is not a miracle.

Well thank you for sharing your belief there.

 

[Buzzard3]

Abiogenesis in science, are testable in principle hypotheses

Very funny. Next you'll be telling me that "computer modelling" says abiogenesis is possible.

... and therefore not physically impossible.

Knowing how complex even the simplest known cell is, it is decidely irrational to postulate that such complexity could be the result of a natural process. It is as irrational as postulating that a computer is the product of a natural (non-human) process ... and computers are not even self-replicating.

And there is not a scrap of evidence that suggests any viable organism is structurally, chemically and functionally "simple".

 

[Buzzard3]

Spriggina, Parvancorina, Spinospitella, several of the Radiodonta.

- Spriggina:
Paleontologists have noted that Spriggina specimens show no evidence of bilateral symmetry, eyes, limbs, mouths, or anuses, most of which are known from fossil trilobites.

"Trilobites made a SUDDEN APPEARANCE in the fossil record. There appears to be a considerable evolutionary gap from possible earlier precursors such as Spriggina"
("Trilobites", Wikipedia)

- Parvancorina:
Almost certainly sessile (unilke Trilobites, which are motile); lacks limbs and eyes; no apparent mouth or anus ... ie, a very long way from a Trilobite.

"Morphological similarities between trilobites and earlier arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other "trilobitomorphs" of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian are ambiguous enough to make a detailed analysis of their ancestry complex." ("Trilobites", Wikipedia)

- Spinospitella:
You must be joking.

- several of the Radiodonta:
I couldn't find any scientist who suggests Radiodonta are evolutionary ancestors of Trilobites.

 

[Buzzard3]

'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.

All the known phyla, except one, appeared during the Cambrian explosion. That in itself is a problem for evolutionary theory.

 

[Buzzard3]

No, not the same observations, new observations.

Is that so? Which were the original observations that gave rise to the theory and which were the "new" observations?

No, not the same observations, new observations.

This is what Gould states as the initial observation which gave rise to PE: "The history of most fossil species" (The Panda's Thumb", p.182) ... the very same observation that is used to "test" PE.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

You can't use examples of MICROevolution to test a theory (PE) that attempts to explain MACROevolutions evident in the fossil record.

The timescale of human observation is not generally sufficient to observe major morphological changes, but speciation has been observed ...

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.

Oh, so you think the THEORY that microevolutions led to the macroevolutions evident in the fossil record can be used to confirm the THEORY of PE.

A theory confirmed by another theory - wow, I didn't know that's how science works.

 

[Buzzard3]

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

... but not nearly as amazing as how selective Darwinists are when it comes to evidence.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review

This Thread
is Now
Permanently Closed

RV: Off-Topic

MOD HAT OFF​