For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Shemjaza]

Yes, I believe the Cambrian explosion and its animals were real and I accept the timelines as estimated by science.

So the animals of the Cambrian explosion were real... what next?

You know that none of them are still found in the oceans of the modern world.

Is every new subtle variation of an existing family or clade just miracled into the world over the eons?

 

[Buzzard3]

Because science has this wonderful thing called evolution that nicely explains the whole thing.

How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection? I don't see how anyone can test that that mechanism was responsible.

And if not, said hypothesis is dead in the water.

 

[Astrid]

I'm not a YEC. I accept the scientific evidence that suggests the universe and earth could be billions of years old and that life on earth could have begun billions of years ago.

What I don't accept is Darwinian folklore, which says the history of life on earth is the result contiguous process of biolgical evolution, the mechanisms of which are understood and described by the Modern Synthesis.

Some reason to make up a name instead
of using the real name?

Id not accept the theory of evolution either if
theee were like even one contrary fact.

I guess thats the difference between us- you
can do it with no facts at all.

 

[Astrid]

How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection? I don't see how anyone can test that that mechanism was responsible.

And if not, said hypothesis is dead in the water.

Dead according to you.

But you accept that they are ancestral to
terrestrial Vertebrates?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd not accept the theory of evolution either if there were like even one contrary fact.

It's called "unfalsifiability."

That's why you can make such a bold statement.

I wonder who said the same thing before the platypus was "discovered"?

Only he went and called it a "monotreme" instead.

Then he probably said, "Well, if we find another, then I'll disavow evolution."

Then the echidna was discovered, and he called it a "monotreme."

Then he probably said, "Well, if we find another, then I'll disavow evolution."

Then the Komodo dragon was discovered, and he called it a "cryptid."

Then the okapi, then the gorilla, then the giant squid, then the bondegezou, then the kangaroo.

If you think for one minute I should accept the idea that you guys will change your mind about evolution if you see a giraffe give birth to a T. Rex tomorrow -- think again.

 

[Buzzard3]

Dead according to you.

No, dead according to the scientific method.

Am I to assume that you can't provide an answer to my question?:
How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection?

If no test is possible, said hypothesis is dead in the water. That's how science works ... as opposed to your pseudo-scientific belief system.

But you accept that they are ancestral to
terrestrial Vertebrates?

... only in the sense that fish existed first. I don't accept that they are linked by a contiguos process of biological evolution.

 

[Buzzard3]

Deleted

 

[Buzzard3]

Id not accept the theory of evolution either if
theee were like even one contrary fact.

the Cambrian explosion = one contrary fact

 

[Astrid]

the Cambrian explosion = one contrary fact

Oh? Explain how that disproves ToE, plz.

 

[Shemjaza]

How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection? I don't see how anyone can test that that mechanism was responsible.

And if not, said hypothesis is dead in the water.

It's a logical extrapolation from the mechanisms found in the evolution of extant species.

You test it by examining the genetics of various extant species and examine the fossil record.

Both create a compatible nested hierarchy of the lineages of life.

The same mechanism that demonstrates paternity can be used to demonstrate a more distant relationship among all humans... and a more distant relationship still among all life.

the Cambrian explosion = one contrary fact

You keep repeating this... can you specifically explain why?

How exactly is it impossible for life to undergo rapid diversification in a time of significant environmental change and significant new niches becoming available?

(That's ignoring the fact that animals with hard shells and bones are vastly more likely to be preserved).

 

[Astrid]

No, dead according to the scientific method.

Am I to assume that you can't provide an answer to my question?:
How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection?

If no test is possible, said hypothesis is dead in the water. That's how science works ... as opposed to your pseudo-scientific belief system.

... only in the sense that fish existed first. I don't accept that they are linked by a contiguos process of biological evolution.

What explanation do you have for the sequence in the
fossil record, then, if its not a step by step evolution?
What did happen, iyo?

You have a coherent logical explanation that
accounts for all the data?

 

[AV1611VET]

What explanation do you have for the sequence in the fossil record, then, if its not a step by step evolution?

Ecological niches.

 

[Buzzard3]

Oh? Explain how that disproves ToE, plz.

The problem the Cambrian explosion presents for ToE is not just its relatively short time span (five million years, according to S.J.Gould and others).
There are at least three other serious contradictions:

1. The Cambrian explosion reveals the sudden appearace of all animal phyla (except one), followed by diversification within each phylum. So we see disparity first, followed by diversity ... which is the opposite of what ToE predicts - diversity first, which eventually leads to disparity much later on.

2. There is virtually nothing in the way of
evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian biota. The Ediacaran (pre-Cambrian) biota suffered a mass-extinction well before the Cambrian explosion, and all that seems to have existed between the Edicaran and Cambrian were the "small shelly fauna". The evolutionary gap between the "ssf" and something like a trilobite is massive. Where are the transitionals? It seems there are none.

3. ToE predicts a single "tree" of common descent, with interconnecting "branches" between phyla ... but there is no fossil evidence of phylogenetic branches between the many phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
So instead of Darwinism's single tree of common descent, the Cambrian explosion looks more like an orchard of separate trees.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem the Cambrian explosion presents for ToE is not just its relatively short time span (five million years, according to S.J.Gould and others).
There are at least three other serious contradictions:

1. The Cambrian explosion reveals the sudden appearace of all animal phyla (except one), followed by diversification within each phylum. So we see disparity first, followed by diversity ... which is the opposite of what ToE predicts - diversity first, which eventually leads to disparity much later on.

2. There is virtually nothing in the way of
evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian biota. The Ediacaran (pre-Cambrian) biota suffered a mass-extinction well before the Cambrian explosion, and all that seems to have existed between the Edicaran and Cambrian were the "small shelly fauna". The evolutionary gap between the "ssf" and something like a trilobite is massive. Where are the transitionals? It seems there are none.

3. ToE predicts a single "tree" of common descent, with interconnecting "branches" between phyla ... but there is no fossil evidence of phylogenetic branches between the many phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
So instead of Darwinism's single tree of common descent, the Cambrian explosion looks more like an orchard of separate trees.

Except that the time frame for the Cambrian explosion is between 13 and 25 million years. That is A LONG time.

We also don't find a lot of pre-Cambrian life because the vast majority of pre-Cambrian life was softer than the harder organisms that came during and after the Cambrian Explosion, meaning they wouldn't fossilize well. Fossils form under specific circumstances. Those circumstances aren't met, the bones just go.

The theory of evolution DID predict a single tree of common descent, but that is an old school prediction that has been replaced with the bush of descent you so mention before.

And again, evolutionary theory does not end with Darwin. He is not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem the Cambrian explosion presents for ToE is not just its relatively short time span (five million years, according to S.J.Gould and others).
There are at least three other serious contradictions:

1. The Cambrian explosion reveals the sudden appearace of all animal phyla (except one), followed by diversification within each phylum. So we see disparity first, followed by diversity ... which is the opposite of what ToE predicts - diversity first, which eventually leads to disparity much later on.

2. There is virtually nothing in the way of
evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian biota. The Ediacaran (pre-Cambrian) biota suffered a mass-extinction well before the Cambrian explosion, and all that seems to have existed between the Edicaran and Cambrian were the "small shelly fauna". The evolutionary gap between the "ssf" and something like a trilobite is massive. Where are the transitionals? It seems there are none.

3. ToE predicts a single "tree" of common descent, with interconnecting "branches" between phyla ... but there is no fossil evidence of phylogenetic branches between the many phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
So instead of Darwinism's single tree of common descent, the Cambrian explosion looks more like an orchard of separate trees.

These ideas of yours are out-dated by some 15-20 years now.

I'd recommend checking out Donald Protheros book, the story of life in 25 fossils for a more current understanding of the Cambrian explosion.

 

[Astrid]

The problem the Cambrian explosion presents for ToE is not just its relatively short time span (five million years, according to S.J.Gould and others).


There are at least three other serious contradictions:

1. The Cambrian explosion reveals the sudden appearace of all animal phyla (except one), followed by diversification within each phylum. So we see disparity first, followed by diversity ... which is the opposite of what ToE predicts - diversity first, which eventually leads to disparity much later on.

2. There is virtually nothing in the way of
evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian biota. The Ediacaran (pre-Cambrian) biota suffered a mass-extinction well before the Cambrian explosion, and all that seems to have existed between the Edicaran and Cambrian were the "small shelly fauna". The evolutionary gap between the "ssf" and something like a trilobite is massive. Where are the transitionals? It seems there are none.

3. ToE predicts a single "tree" of common descent, with interconnecting "branches" between phyla ... but there is no fossil evidence of phylogenetic branches between the many phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
So instead of Darwinism's single tree of common descent, the Cambrian explosion looks more like an orchard of separate trees.

An estimate of the time as held by some few is a problem- how?
The you say its a contradiction- which is it, how is it either one?

Ive never heard of " disparity / diversity " as a thing
in evolution.

You know of course that fossils of any sort from
the cambrian or pre cambrian are scarce, and there
is no Manhattan Project type fundimg.

" Branches between phyla" You sure? That makes no
sense to me.

Im notbsurevwhat you are getting at.
You accept geological dating.

That there is good fossil record of various lines
of descent. You say there are some ( known) links, but
assume ones not found dont exist?

Is it that you think there were multiple origins to
life leading to the divers kingdoms? Phyla? Class?

That the sometimes- lack of ( so far?) undiscovered
transitional forms means there arent any?
As in, data contrary to ToE?

Ive noticed that many species are known only from one
partial specimen.
What should one conclude from that?
A portion of spine two leg bones and a jaw are all there ever was?
Its the only one that ever existed? No parents or
descendents? Lonely antelope!

I dont see why gaps such as that, in the fossil
record seem to you as data that contradicts the theory.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except that the time frame for the Cambrian explosion is between 13 and 25 million years. That is A LONG time.

"[A] great variety and abundance of animal fossils appear in deposits dating from a geologically brief interval between about 530 to 520 Ma, early in the Cambrian period. During this time, nearly all the major living animal groups (phyla) that have skeletons first appeared as fossils (at least one appeared earlier). Surprisingly, a number of those localities have yielded fossils that preserve details of complex organs at the tissue level, such as eyes, guts, and appendages. In addition, several groups that were entirely soft-bodied and thus could be preserved only under unusual circumstances also first appear in those faunas. Because many of those fossils represent complex groups such as vertebrates (the subgroup of the phylum Chordata to which humans belong) and arthropods, it seems likely that all or nearly all the major phylum-level groups of living animals, including many small soft-bodied groups that we do not actually find as fossils, had appeared by the end of the early Cambrian. This geologically abrupt and spectacular record of early animal life is called the Cambrian explosion." (Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, "The Cambrian Explosion", p. 5)


“The most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution was the dramatic origin of major new structures and body plans documented by the Cambrian explosion. Until 530 million years ago, multicellular animals consisted primarily of simple, soft-bodied forms, most of which have been identified from the fossil record as cnidarians and sponges. Then, WITHIN LESS THAN 10 MILLION YEARS, almost all of the advanced phyla appeared, including echinoderms, chordates, annelids, brachiopods, molluscs and a host of arthropods. The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during THIS BRIEF TIME PERIOD REQUIRES EXPLANATIONS THAT GO BEYOND THOSE PROPOSED FOR THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES WITHIN THE MODERN BIOTA.” (Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 15: 27-32 (January, 2000), emphasis added.)


"An analysis by MIT geochronologist Samuel Bowring has shown that the main pulse of Cambrian morphological innovation occurred in a sedimentary sequence spanning NO MORE THAN 6 MILLION YEARS. Yet during this time representatives of AT LEAST SIXTEEN COMPLETELY NOVEL PHYLA AND ABOUT THIRTY CLASSES first appeared in the rock record. In a more recent paper using a slightly different dating scheme, Douglas Erwin and colleagues similarly show that THIRTEEN NEW PHYLA APPEAR IN A ROUGHLY appear in a roughly 6-MILLION-YEAR WINDOW."
(Stephen Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt", p. 73. emphasis added)

 

[Job 33:6]

"[A] great variety and abundance of animal fossils appear in deposits dating from a geologically brief interval between about 530 to 520 Ma, early in the Cambrian period. During this time, nearly all the major living animal groups (phyla) that have skeletons first appeared as fossils (at least one appeared earlier). Surprisingly, a number of those localities have yielded fossils that preserve details of complex organs at the tissue level, such as eyes, guts, and appendages. In addition, several groups that were entirely soft-bodied and thus could be preserved only under unusual circumstances also first appear in those faunas. Because many of those fossils represent complex groups such as vertebrates (the subgroup of the phylum Chordata to which humans belong) and arthropods, it seems likely that all or nearly all the major phylum-level groups of living animals, including many small soft-bodied groups that we do not actually find as fossils, had appeared by the end of the early Cambrian. This geologically abrupt and spectacular record of early animal life is called the Cambrian explosion." (Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, "The Cambrian Explosion", p. 5)


“The most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution was the dramatic origin of major new structures and body plans documented by the Cambrian explosion. Until 530 million years ago, multicellular animals consisted primarily of simple, soft-bodied forms, most of which have been identified from the fossil record as cnidarians and sponges. Then, WITHIN LESS THAN 10 MILLION YEARS, almost all of the advanced phyla appeared, including echinoderms, chordates, annelids, brachiopods, molluscs and a host of arthropods. The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during THIS BRIEF TIME PERIOD REQUIRES EXPLANATIONS THAT GO BEYOND THOSE PROPOSED FOR THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES WITHIN THE MODERN BIOTA.” (Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 15: 27-32 (January, 2000), emphasis added.)


"An analysis by MIT geochronologist Samuel Bowring has shown that the main pulse of Cambrian morphological innovation occurred in a sedimentary sequence spanning NO MORE THAN 6 MILLION YEARS. Yet during this time representatives of AT LEAST SIXTEEN COMPLETELY NOVEL PHYLA AND ABOUT THIRTY CLASSES first appeared in the rock record. In a more recent paper using a slightly different dating scheme, Douglas Erwin and colleagues similarly show that THIRTEEN NEW PHYLA APPEAR IN A ROUGHLY appear in a roughly 6-MILLION-YEAR WINDOW."
(Stephen Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt", p. 73. emphasis added)

Why I do not accept evolution part one

Let's see if I can find a post with my old spreadsheet.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why I do not accept evolution part one

Let's see if I can find a post with my old spreadsheet.

Why I don't believe in evolution...

I made a spreadsheet with a giant list of phyla and the timing of their appearances.

Only about 9 of 31 are observed, currently uncontested, as having been observed to first appear in the Cambrian

 

[Job 33:6]

Why I don't believe in evolution...

I made a spreadsheet with a giant list of phyla and the timing of their appearances.

Only about 9 of 31 are observed, currently uncontested, as having been observed to first appear in the Cambrian

"had appeared by the end of the early Cambrian"

Also, this is all well and good, but of course this isn't a statement of the timing in which they began to appear.

"nearly all the major living animal groups (phyla) that have skeletons first appeared as fossils"

And what of those that didn't have skeletons?

Dare I say this comes off as quote mining?