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

[Shemjaza]

(Following comments added in reply to me weirdly to a thread in the Christians Only Section)
For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

... which is like saying,

"We observe that humans are now running 100 metres in less than 10 seconds, which is faster than what they ran 60 years ago.

Based on this observation we predict that one day humans will run 100 metres in one second."

... which is akin to saying,

"We observe that humans are now running 100 metres in less than 10 seconds, which is faster than what they ran 60 years ago.

Based on this observation we predict that one day humans will run 100 metres in one second."

Wild evolutionary extrapolations are easy to make, but impossible to prove.

That is not a reasonable analogy, mainly because it is based on actual observations of fossil evidence.

This isn't a matter of silly sci-fi channel or X men ideas of future evolution it is examples of living and once living animals demonstrating that something is possible.

Then we have the methods of change and build up of change, that you accept, then looking into it continuing for a long time.

A better analogy with humans running is that if we can show that a human can walk 15000 metres in a day, then it's not unreasonable to accept that human can cover 100000 km in a week.

 

[Buzzard3]

Ya know, the blaster actually gave you some good
advice, you should trying some of thst autodidact stuff.

Ive done it to some effect.

The game " ask a 10 th grade science q.,
and then I tale time to respond, you ignore it and
spend seconds on another question " well, thats like you
throw a ball for me to fetch. I dont like that game,
so no deal.

In other words, you can't tell me what's dishonest about assessing the evidence and coming to the conclusion of intelligent design.

 

[Buzzard3]

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?

I don't waste my time trying to explain the inexplicable and trying to know what cannot be known.
The mechanisms described by the Modern Synthesis provide the best scientific explanation for the fossil sequences you mention, but I suspect there's much more to it than that.

 

[Buzzard3]

For example, Claudina of the precambrian for example, would be early annelid bilaterians, transitional precursors to metazoan bilaterians today

I googled "Claudina" and got no results.

And for some reason your attachment didn't work ... might be my phone's fault.

 

[Astrid]

In other words, you can't tell me what's dishonest about assessing the evidence and coming to the conclusion of intelligent design.

As usual, your capacity for a reasonable conclusion
is extremely limited, due to lack of information
multiplied by choosing what you want to believe.

If you had any actual interest in knowing whether ID
is reasonable or even sane, rather than assuming it has to
be true for emotional reasons and being committed to
bitterly clinging to that pseudoscience, you' d have long
since done the search you want me to do for you.

Suppose i give you a half dozen links to the most
rrspectable sources .
You then play dueling website with items from ICR,
AIR, DI?

 

[Job 33:6]

I googled "Claudina" and got no results.

And for some reason your attachment didn't work ... might be my phone's fault.

You can try "claudinids".
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.257.5068.367
Early skeletal fossils | The Paleontological Society Papers | Cambridge Core
Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia
Namapoikia - Wikipedia
Namacalathus - Wikipedia
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1414577112


"The small shelly fauna, small shelly fossils (SSF), or early skeletal fossils (ESF)[1] are mineralized fossils, many only a few millimetres long, with a nearly continuous record from the latest stages of the Ediacaran to the end of the Early Cambrian Period. They are very diverse, and there is no formal definition of "small shelly fauna" or "small shelly fossils". Almost all are from earlier rocks than more familiar fossils such as trilobites. Since most SSFs were preserved by being covered quickly with phosphate and this method of preservation is mainly limited to the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian periods, the animals that made them may actually have arisen earlier and persisted after this time span.

Some of the fossils represent the entire skeletons of small organisms, including the mysterious Cloudina and some snail-like molluscs. However, the bulk of the fossils are fragments or disarticulated remains of larger organisms, including sponges, molluscs, slug-like halkieriids, brachiopods, echinoderms, and onychophoran-like organisms that may have been close to the ancestors of arthropods."

 

[Buzzard3]

You can try "claudinids".
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.257.5068.367
Early skeletal fossils | The Paleontological Society Papers | Cambridge Core
Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia
Namapoikia - Wikipedia
Namacalathus - Wikipedia
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1414577112


"The small shelly fauna, small shelly fossils (SSF), or early skeletal fossils (ESF)[1] are mineralized fossils, many only a few millimetres long, with a nearly continuous record from the latest stages of the Ediacaran to the end of the Early Cambrian Period. They are very diverse, and there is no formal definition of "small shelly fauna" or "small shelly fossils". Almost all are from earlier rocks than more familiar fossils such as trilobites. Since most SSFs were preserved by being covered quickly with phosphate and this method of preservation is mainly limited to the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian periods, the animals that made them may actually have arisen earlier and persisted after this time span.

Some of the fossils represent the entire skeletons of small organisms, including the mysterious Cloudina and some snail-like molluscs. However, the bulk of the fossils are fragments or disarticulated remains of larger organisms, including sponges, molluscs, slug-like halkieriids, brachiopods, echinoderms, and onychophoran-like organisms that may have been close to the ancestors of arthropods."

View attachment 315097

The articles mention "Cloudina" - where did you get "Claudina" from?

 

[Job 33:6]

The articles mention "Cloudina" - where did you get "Claudina" from?

Thank you for the spelling correction^.

Wonders if there is more to the response*

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

... which in turn is based on the assumption that all organisms share common ancestor.

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.." S.J. Gould, "The Panda's Thumb")

Some diagrams of evolutionary trees show the inferred branches as dotted lines, but most aren't that honest - the inferred branches are shown as solid lines and there is no mention of inferred branches at all.

Except that you have not shown at all how it's just inference.

There is more scientific evidence for a common ancestor than there is for a creator god, because it is impossible to study the supernatural.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is more scientific evidence for a common ancestor than there is for a creator god, because it is impossible to study the supernatural.

God must be invisible.

I wonder if He told us that in His documentation?

 

[Buzzard3]

There is more scientific evidence for a common ancestor than there is for a creator god, because it is impossible to study the supernatural.

The Cambrian explosion alone is enough to banish the theory of a universal common ancestor to the realm of mythology, but Darwinism persists with it's core myth because it's aim is to advance atheism, not to advance science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Cambrian explosion alone is enough to banish the theory of a universal common ancestor to the realm of mythology,

Not even close.

but Darwinism persists with it's core myth because it's aim is to advance atheism, not to advance science.

Paranoia it strikes deep, into you heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...

 

[Buzzard3]

Thank you for the spelling correction^.
Wonders if there is more to the response*

The evolutionary gap between Cloudina and a trilobite, for example, is enormous.

Cloudina was sessile; a triobites was motile.
Cloudina was sightless; a trilobite had eyes.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

Nested hierarchies are confined to individual phylum, but there is no fossil evidence that allows all the phyla themselves to be gathered into a nested hierarchy.
In other words, the theory of a universal common ancestor is a myth that exists only in the minds of Darwinists.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but dems da facts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

but Darwinism persists with it's core myth because it's aim is to advance atheism, not to advance science.

Since you seemed to think my first response was intended to be humorous let me correct you here...

Evolutionary theory (what you called "darwinism") *is* science. It's purpose is to explain biological systems and diversity. It does not exist for the purpose of discrediting Christianity or any other religion and it definitely isn't purposed with promoting "atheism". If Christianity or some other religion is damaged by the finding of a science that is a problem with the religion, not the science. [Religion should stop being paranoid about science. It isn't out to get you.]

 

[Job 33:6]

The evolutionary gap between Cloudina and a trilobite, for example, is enormous.

Cloudina was sessile; a triobites was motile.
Cloudina was sightless; a trilobite had eyes.

Trilobites are arthropods. This is like saying that cloudina isn't an ancestral form of a giraffe. Cloudina is more likely ancestral to other types of annelids.

The point being of course that precursors are found prior to the Cambrian explosion, cloudina, among the others listed in my prior posts.

Trilobite ancestors would have looked more like parvancorina:
Parvancorina - Wikipedia
Or perhaps more like spriggina:
Spriggina - Wikipedia

View attachment 315114

These, and other ongoing discoveries will continue to be contested, though realistically it's quite clear that bilaterians that held striking similarities to trilobites indeed existed before the Cambrian.

Meanwhile, outside of bilaterians, cnidarians, annelids, mollusks, sponges etc. All have been found in fossil form before the Cambrian in more recent times. Though Darwin, in his time, never knew of such fossils. But as time goes on, we continue to find more and more, and the so called Cambrian explosion, which was once thought to be instantaneous, has gradually expanded to tens of millions of years with more and more precursors identified beforehand in the precambrian.

 

[Job 33:6]

Trilobites are arthropods. This is like saying that cloudina isn't an ancestral form of a giraffe. Cloudina is more likely ancestral to other types of annelids.

The point being of course that precursors are found prior to the Cambrian explosion, cloudina, among the others listed in my prior posts.

Trilobite ancestors would have looked more like parvancorina:
Parvancorina - Wikipedia
Or perhaps more like spriggina:
Spriggina - Wikipedia

These, and other ongoing discoveries will continue to be contested, though realistically it's quite clear that bilaterians that held striking similarities to trilobites indeed existed before the Cambrian.

Meanwhile, outside of bilaterians, cnidarians, annelids, mollusks, sponges etc. All have been found in fossil form before the Cambrian in more recent times. Though Darwin, in his time, never knew of such fossils. But as time goes on, we continue to find more and more, and the so called Cambrian explosion, which was once thought to be instantaneous, has gradually expanded to tens of millions of years with more and more precursors identified beforehand in the precambrian.

I wonder if this will work.

If someone made an argument that the above wasn't ancestral to trilobites, and therefore evolution wasn't true, it would be a rather poor argument for multiple reasons.

In this world we have 600 million years of a succession. People who go to the very extremes in an effort to make arguments are like people who play the "God of the gaps" game where they keep pushing God into a smaller and smaller box as more scientific discoveries are made, rather than taking a different perspective on the topic which allows God to be sovereign creator of everything that is discovered. For example, if a guaranteed trilobite ancestors were found 5 years from now, would people give up belief in God? I would hope not. Would they then ask for the ancestor of that ancestor? Well, that simply delays the inevitable and puts God into a smaller box.

Otherwise it just looks bad for ID advocates. Digging to the absolute oldest of rocks approaching a billion years of age where most are melted and metamorphosed, where life becomes microscopic and soft bodied/without bone and decrying "the fossils aren't there so the theory is false!". Meanwhile the elephant in the room, the mountain of evidence for post ediacaran species rests beside them. Meanwhile even a child could see the clear morphological resemblance between things like a spriggina and a trilobite, both bilaterally symmetrical with a similar body shape and carapace.

 

[Shemjaza]

Nested hierarchies are confined to individual phylum, but there is no fossil evidence that allows all the phyla themselves to be gathered into a nested hierarchy.
In other words, the theory of a universal common ancestor is a myth that exists only in the minds of Darwinists.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but dems da facts.

How many times have you ignored genetic evidence?

After a while it stops being ignorance and becomes wilful dishonesty.

 

[Buzzard3]

Trilobites are arthropods. This is like saying that cloudina isn't an ancestral form of a giraffe. Cloudina is more likely ancestral to other types of annelids.

Yes, of course. My bad. I was confusing Cloudina with Claudina, the evolutionary ancestor of the giraffe.

 

[Buzzard3]

Since you seemed to think my first response was intended to be humorous let me correct you here...

Evolutionary theory (what you called "darwinism") *is* science. It's purpose is to explain biological systems and diversity. It does not exist for the purpose of discrediting Christianity or any other religion and it definitely isn't purposed with promoting "atheism". If Christianity or some other religion is damaged by the finding of a science that is a problem with the religion, not the science. [Religion should stop being paranoid about science. It isn't out to get you.]

I don't expect you to understand - you're just a pawn in a spiritual battle that you're oblivious to.