In the case of the cambrian layer...the fossil record does not contain fossils, which are required to even attempt an explanation in accordance with the ToE.
Joman.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The fossil record does not contain DNA, which is required for the explanation that you are asking for.
Joman said:In the case of the cambrian layer...the fossil record does not contain fossils, which are required to even attempt an explanation in accordance with the ToE.
Joman.
No, it's not. Species that would become phyla in the future died out. But the species that did not diversified, into orders, families etc. Remember, evolution is a process of diversification of already existing groups. That no new phyla evolved, is thus completely in line with the theory of evolution.Joman said:Alas...there's no fossil record of a common ancestor to the cambrian layer. And, decreasing numbers of phyla is contrary to "survival of the fittest" as a powerful mechanism useful to the ToE. Wouldn't "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" forces have prevented such great extinction?
Look it up yourself the net is available and easy to use
The micro-organism's before the cambrian layer are few in number and are as stated (MICRO) in size. Macro organisms are glaringly different than the micro. And, the diversity of the Cambrian layer is huge compared to anything found prior to itNo, they're not glaringly different.
Because the Cambrian explosion saw the rise of creatures with skeletons. That hadn't happened before. There's a first time for everything.True. But, not before it. How is that possilbe within hte ToE?
And, the logic is?
That a new niche (ie, environment) opens up new possibilties that couldn't be explored previously. For example, the spread of grasses caused the existence of plains. This caused a new niche for animals that could live on plains to evolve. Hence, we see a rapid development of all kinds of animals that can live on grassy plains. The new environment opened up new possibilities for new evolutionary pathways.Joman.
So to say that well the Cambrian had more phyla why aren't there more phyla today the Theory of evolution is busted, is missing the point.
If it has no fossils then why does this thread exist?
Joman said:If you can ever answer that question you will have discovered why you thinking is fallacious. And, why I said to that you need to think.
Joman.
Incorrect. The Vendian fauna include such multicellular organisms, including some with the segmentation we see in the trilobites and others of the Cambrian.Joman said:You wish it were missing the point.
Also, don't miss the point of there being no record prior to the cambrian that can explain the cambrian.
Joman.
Joman said:You wish it were missing the point.
No, it's not. Species that would become phyla in the future died out. But the species that did not diversified, into orders, families etc. Remember, evolution is a process of diversification of already existing groups. That no new phyla evolved, is thus completely in line with the theory of evolution.
Remember, evolution is a process of diversification of already existing groups.
I don't see why I should do the work to support your claim. Why should I do your work, if you're to lazy to do it yourself?
And I disagree that 'macro organisms' are so glaringly different. They're not. Many of the micro organisms, such as Volvox, already show the level of cell specialization necessary to create 'macro organisms'. The only thing needed further is a skeleton, but that's a simple question of using calcium, which is also already done by micro organisms in an organized way.
Because the Cambrian explosion saw the rise of creatures with skeletons. That hadn't happened before. There's a first time for everything.
That a new niche (ie, environment) opens up new possibilties that couldn't be explored previously. For example, the spread of grasses caused the existence of plains. This caused a new niche for animals that could live on plains to evolve. Hence, we see a rapid development of all kinds of animals that can live on grassy plains. The new environment opened up new possibilities for new evolutionary pathways.
er...we have been discussing the Cambrian explosion. If there were no fossils we couldn't be talking about it.
Incorrect. The Vendian fauna include such multicellular organisms, including some with the segmentation we see in the trilobites and others of the Cambrian.
I didn't state anything of the above. Read my post again and actually reply to what I wrote. If you have questions, you can ask them, but I expect you to reply to what I actually wrote.Joman said:You just admitted (as you should) that the ToE allows for the evolution of new phyla. But, you also admit that it didn't since the Cambrian explosion. That coupled with the fact that no fossil evidence prior to the Cambrian layer reveals it as having occurred prior to the Cambrian layer concludes the ToE as false according to the fossil record.
This also is not what I stated. See above and do the same for this statement. Hint, it helps if you don't seperate sentences that are in the same paragraph. They aren't in the same paragraph for fun, they are in the same paragraph because they belong together.Let's get real for a moment. If you believe that all the "groups" just popped up out of nowhere (scientifically speaking) then it can happen anytime, anywhere on earth and that isn't scientific is it?
You just stated here that if you did the work you would find that it supports my claim. And, of course that is true, and is most probably the real reason you won't go do your own research. I'm making the point that many of you are so biased that you don't know how to use the net to review opposition to many of your false belief's concerning science.[/qutoe]
I didn't. I stated that you should do the work to support your claims, not me. Regardless of whether they are true or false.
Pot, meet kettle.You are naive and lack insight. For example, there's nothing simple about skeletons.
Question, do you know what Volvox is?
Your being simplistic.
It might be simplistic. Being simplistic doesn't make it any less logical or any less correct.
This is simplistic also.
Joman.
Joman said:So, if we travel back in time and find no record of the phyla prior to the cambrian layer then some thing is wrong with athe ToE.
And, if you say that, no new phyla was evolved since the cambrian layer was deposited and is a prediction of the ToE, then where did the cambrian phyla come from?
I'm beginning to wonder if you realize what your conceding. Are you saying that the ToE cannot predict the origin of all phyla?
However, the ToE is magical in it's predictions about where things came from.
The "magical" powers of the ToE are veiled in eons of time. Thus, when confronted with the cambrian layer the ToE suddenly is seen for what it is...the magical appearance of lifeforms without any evidence of an observable descent or ascent of life forms.
The hypothesis that there isn't any God who did anything is scientifically unprovable. Thus, the belief that there is, a God who did something, is rational and cannot be refuted by science.
So, it isn't an excuse but a rational belief that the complexity of life, and it's diversity as well as the orderliness of nature about us is the conception of a complex, diverse and orderly mind able to use sufficient power so as to fabricate it.
Granted that science cannot establish; neither, the existence
nor the character of God, it does not follow that there is no God. To attempt to claim so is to rely on an argument from incredulity...which is specious.
To believe that "God did it" is far more rational than to believe that "No-one did it".
You evolutionists can't scintifically prove the existence of a "common ancestor" any better than I can prove "God is my ancestor".
Joman.
That's it????Joman said:
You are being simplistic also.
Joman.
Ps. I gotta go.
Oncedeceived said:I am not giving this as a scientific hypothesis, I am basing a hypothesis (non-scientific) on scientific evidence to support or falsify that hypothesis.
caravelair said:this makes no sense. a hypothesis that is not scientific is not subject to the scientific method, and therefore science cannot support or falsify it.
example: i could claim that the universe was created last thursday with the appearance of great age and each of us created with the false memories of our former lives.
this is an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific idea. let's see if i can "use science" to support it! well, if my idea is true, then the earth should have the appearance of great age. science says the earth does look very old, therefore this supports my idea!
oh wait... no it doesn't. this is no different from what you are doing, and what you are doing here is no less pointless
Oncedeceived said:Untrue. The definition:
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
No it would not, thats the whole point!Science would falsify such a hypothesis. Carbon dating of antiquities and other factors would show this hypothsis false.
Oncedeceived said:Untrue. The definition:
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Science would falsify such a hypothesis. Carbon dating of antiquities and other factors would show this hypothsis false.
Untrue as shown above.
Again, untrue. Scientific data is Scientific data regardless of what the hypothesis is.
caravelair said:and if this hypothesis is not SCIENTIFIC, which yours is not, then it is not subject to the scientific method, and therefore science cannot say anything about it, and cannot possibly support it.
no, i said the universe was created with the appearance of great age. thus, according to my hypothesis, we would expect radiometric dating to give us great ages.
no, you just misunderstood my hypothesis. if it is correct, we would expect to see great ages, because the universe was created with the false appearance of great age.
data is data. whether or not that data makes a hypothesis likely to be true or not depends on whether or not that hypothesis passes the scientific method of testing. if it cannot be tested by the scientific method, then the data is irrelevant to the hypothesis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?