Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

[Jimmy D]

Whwn will you evos realize that when the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the Cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....the mutations are not show to add up.

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

The question becomes:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. The geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the Cambrian strata are already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don't present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be pretty much up-side-down.

57 - Posting the same old 'arguments' from 2013.

The response you got then still applies.....

"Back to trying to derail threads with your silly argument from personal incredulity and willful ignorance, then.

Good move. You give everyone a chuckle and again demonstrate how little you know about science for (potentially) the entire world with an internet connection to see."



Can I ask did you make this post in 2005 under a different name or did you just plagiarise it? I notice it was also used in 2007 when it received this answer.....

"Hi Trilobyte,
If you look on the other side of this thread, you will see that we have been discussing these questions. I look forward to hearing your replies to the issues presented there.
http://www.evolution...=20

I believe you have made a couple of statements that, in my opinion, are not supported by the evidence.
1. Cambrian rocks are NOT basement rocks
There are usually many thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks below the Cambrian rocks. The most famous site, the Burgess Shale is now at 8000 feet with many thousands of feet of sediment below these exposed. Almost all of these layers contain single-cell life only (algae).

2. In the last 20 years or so, many complex animals have been found in the layers directly below the Cambrian. These Ediacaran or Vendian life forms may (or may not) be the ancestors of some of the Cambrian animals. On the link above you will find some of the animals scientists think might be transitional. But here is a link that provides a nice account of these animals (including a possible ancestor of your trilobite - Spriggina).
http://www.ucmp.berk...an/vendian.html"


How can you think that "your" questions are valid when they've been repeatedly shown to be wrong since 2005? Are you actually interested in trying to learn anything from these discussions? It's quite a sad state of affairs really.

 

[Loudmouth]

That I didn't know. So what's the difference then?

Since Darwin they have molecular biology, population genetics, the genetic components of development, and many new mechanisms that were not found in Darwin's original theory.

On top of that, theories aren't named after people anymore. That was more of a Victorian thing. We don't call it Einsteinian Relativity, for example. It is just the theory of relativity.

 

[Loudmouth]

The sudden appearance of so many new life forms in the Cambrian.

I don't think Darwin was even aware of the Cambrian explosion. That aside, he solved the problem of why fossils suddenly appear in the fossil record.

 

[PapaZoom]

I don't think Darwin was even aware of the Cambrian explosion. That aside, he solved the problem of why fossils suddenly appear in the fossil record.

I don't think it was called that back then. He was however aware of it. I'm pretty sure you'd not agree with the Discovery Institute but be that as it may, if something is true it doesn't matter the source. This is from a Discovery article.

In the fossil record, however, most of the major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched off from a common ancestor. Darwin was aware of this, acknowledging in The Origin of Species that "several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." He called this a "serious" problem which "at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (Excerpt A, pp. 82, 85). (A) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (New York: D, Appleton, 1890), Chapter X.

another question or two

Decent with modification - that is basically the evolutionary model correct?

Also "natural selection acting on random mutations" - a concept Darwin promoted I believe but then I ran across this: http://www.science20.com/adaptive_c...t_random_mutation_variation_is_the_real_issue

BTW, I do think the fossil record is impressive and am particularly impressed how the lower life forms are at the beginning and it progresses from there. I have my own unscientific theory about that but it's very unscientific (meaning it's just an idea that I've been mulling over but it involves God. ) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[-57]

57 - Posting the same old 'arguments' from 2013.

The response you got then still applies.....

"Back to trying to derail threads with your silly argument from personal incredulity and willful ignorance, then.

Good move. You give everyone a chuckle and again demonstrate how little you know about science for (potentially) the entire world with an internet connection to see."



Can I ask did you make this post in 2005 under a different name or did you just plagiarise it? I notice it was also used in 2007 when it received this answer.....

"Hi Trilobyte,
If you look on the other side of this thread, you will see that we have been discussing these questions. I look forward to hearing your replies to the issues presented there.
http://www.evolution...=20

I believe you have made a couple of statements that, in my opinion, are not supported by the evidence.
1. Cambrian rocks are NOT basement rocks
There are usually many thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks below the Cambrian rocks. The most famous site, the Burgess Shale is now at 8000 feet with many thousands of feet of sediment below these exposed. Almost all of these layers contain single-cell life only (algae).

2. In the last 20 years or so, many complex animals have been found in the layers directly below the Cambrian. These Ediacaran or Vendian life forms may (or may not) be the ancestors of some of the Cambrian animals. On the link above you will find some of the animals scientists think might be transitional. But here is a link that provides a nice account of these animals (including a possible ancestor of your trilobite - Spriggina).
http://www.ucmp.berk...an/vendian.html"


How can you think that "your" questions are valid when they've been repeatedly shown to be wrong since 2005? Are you actually interested in trying to learn anything from these discussions? It's quite a sad state of affairs really.

The truth doesn't change....cambrian rocks present a very large problem for the T.O.E.

 

[Gene2memE]

The truth doesn't change....cambrian rocks present a very large problem for the T.O.E.

It's not a problem for the Theory of Evolution, but an interesting problem within the Theory of Evolution. Like how an unsolved conjecture is not a problem for mathematics, but an interesting problem within mathematics.

Rapid morphological diversifications are observed multiple times in the evolutionary record. Outside of the Cambrian Explosion, there is also:

Avalon Explosion;
Devonian Explosion;
Mesozoic–Cenozoic Radiation;
Mesozoic marine Revolution;
Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution;
Great Ordovician biodiversification event;
Early rapid diversification of land plants;
Rapid angiosperm radiation;
Paleocene epoch mammal diversification.

To quote Christopher H. Martin and Peter C. Wainwright's 2011 paper on Trophic novelty: "Adaptive radiations have been central to evolutionary thinking since its inception".

 

[Jimmy D]

The truth doesn't change....cambrian rocks present a very large problem for the T.O.E.

"Your" incredulity is noted. When you can provide some evidence to back it up maybe you will be taken more seriously.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think it was called that back then. He was however aware of it. I'm pretty sure you'd not agree with the Discovery Institute but be that as it may, if something is true it doesn't matter the source. This is from a Discovery article.

In the fossil record, however, most of the major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched off from a common ancestor. Darwin was aware of this, acknowledging in The Origin of Species that "several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." He called this a "serious" problem which "at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (Excerpt A, pp. 82, 85). (A) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (New York: D, Appleton, 1890), Chapter X.

That would be what's called a quote mine. This is where you quote a small section to give the appearance that the author held a different position than what he really held. If you actually read the quote in context, Darwin is simply discussing the problem, and then he gives his explanation of how it isn't a problem. You can read it all here, in the last 3 paragraphs on the page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

Creationists organizations, like the Discovery Institute, are known for spreading these kinds of lies. I think it would behoove honest Christians to seriously consider not using anything from creationist websites, and instead look up the actual works by the actual authors and quote from them directly in an honest manner.
another question or two

Decent with modification - that is basically the evolutionary model correct?

Basically. Of course, any simply definition is going to leave out details.

Also "natural selection acting on random mutations" - a concept Darwin promoted I believe but then I ran across this: http://www.science20.com/adaptive_c...t_random_mutation_variation_is_the_real_issue

He didn't promote that at all. Darwin didn't even know about random mutations.

BTW, I do think the fossil record is impressive and am particularly impressed how the lower life forms are at the beginning and it progresses from there. I have my own unscientific theory about that but it's very unscientific (meaning it's just an idea that I've been mulling over but it involves God. ) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A hypothesis is an idea, and it is still scientific. However, not all ideas are hypotheses. What you should strive for is thinking of how your idea could be falsified. For example, the theory of evolution could be falsified by finding modern mammal species in Cambrian deposits, or finding chimeric animals that seriously violate a nested hierarchy. What your hypothesis should also incorporate is positive evidence, not negative evidence. By that, I mean the hypothesis should be tested by observations we do make, not observations we don't make. Gaps in the fossil record are not valid tests of a hypothesis because those gaps say nothing about what species may have existed in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

The truth doesn't change....cambrian rocks present a very large problem for the T.O.E.

What problem?

 

[-57]

"Your" incredulity is noted. When you can provide some evidence to back it up maybe you will be taken more seriously.

I tend to kinda brush off atheist evos. They say the funniest stuff when they try to disprove God created in 6 days.

 

[-57]

What problem?

Read my previous posts rather than just acting like you don't have a clue.

 

[-57]

It's not a problem for the Theory of Evolution, but an interesting problem within the Theory of Evolution. Like how an unsolved conjecture is not a problem for mathematics, but an interesting problem within mathematics.

Rapid morphological diversifications are observed multiple times in the evolutionary record. Outside of the Cambrian Explosion, there is also:

Avalon Explosion;
Devonian Explosion;
Mesozoic–Cenozoic Radiation;
Mesozoic marine Revolution;
Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution;
Great Ordovician biodiversification event;
Early rapid diversification of land plants;
Rapid angiosperm radiation;
Paleocene epoch mammal diversification.

To quote Christopher H. Martin and Peter C. Wainwright's 2011 paper on Trophic novelty: "Adaptive radiations have been central to evolutionary thinking since its inception".

I love the way the atheist can post and post...but can't answer the simple questions such as how do mutations add up. ...Their best answer...they just do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Read my previous posts rather than just acting like you don't have a clue.

I have read them and responded to them. Those aren't problems.

For example, nowhere have you shown that the fossils in the Cambrian have no ancestors. So how is this a problem?

 

[Loudmouth]

I love the way the atheist can post and post...but can't answer the simple questions such as how do mutations add up. ...Their best answer...they just do.

They add up through DNA inheritance, as we have explained to you over and over and over and over.

Do you understand how DNA is inherited? Do you understand that a mutation becomes a part of a genome, and that 1/2 of that genome is passed on to one's offspring, including half of those mutations? Do you also understand that mutations happen during the production of sperm and eggs, and that they offspring produced by those gametes will have the mutations passed on from their parents AS WELL AS the mutations that happen in the sperm and egg that conceived them? Do you understand that when you add your own mutations to the mutations you inherited from your parents, THAT THIS IS AN ACCUMULATION OF MUTATIONS?

What part are you confused about?

 

[-57]

I have read them and responded to them. Those aren't problems.

For example, nowhere have you shown that the fossils in the Cambrian have no ancestors. So how is this a problem?

Responded? Where? You haven't even began to reply...you may have thought you did in your desperation...but only failed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Responded? Where?

Post 67.

You haven't even began to reply...you may have thought you did in your desperation...but only failed.

Then prove to me that the species found in the Cambrian have no ancestors. Until you do, you have no case.

 

[-57]

They add up through DNA inheritance, as we have explained to you over and over and over and over.

Do you understand how DNA is inherited? Do you understand that a mutation becomes a part of a genome, and that 1/2 of that genome is passed on to one's offspring, including half of those mutations? Do you also understand that mutations happen during the production of sperm and eggs, and that they offspring produced by those gametes will have the mutations passed on from their parents AS WELL AS the mutations that happen in the sperm and egg that conceived them? Do you understand that when you add your own mutations to the mutations you inherited from your parents, THAT THIS IS AN ACCUMULATION OF MUTATIONS?

What part are you confused about?

Why do you keep presenting the coloring book version of Evolutionism? You act as if it happens just like that. Guess what? It's a bt more complicated than that...and you still act as if it isn't. This is one reason why debating with you is pretting futile.

A so-called rare beneficial mutation has to be added to somewhere down the line of an animals progeny. To form a new body part, appendage...whatever it has to occur numerous times. It has to occur in just the right plkace of the animals DNA...Over and over again....and you can't make it happen.

You've lost this argument already...perhaps you ought to give it a rest.

 

[-57]

Post 67.



Then prove to me that the species found in the Cambrian have no ancestors. Until you do, you have no case.

I laugh at post 67 and the one liner replies.

 

[Loudmouth]

I laugh at post 67 and the one liner replies.

You run away from it because you can't face up to the truth.

 

[-57]

You run away from it because you can't face up to the truth.

If you really need to believe that...then go ahead. I'm not really into your 5th grade style arguments.