Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Loudmouth]

More curiously, all major stages in organizing animal life's multicellular architecture then occurred in a short period beginning less than 600 million years ago and ending by about 530 million years ago - and the steps within this sequence are also discontinuous and episodic, not gradually accumulative.

So where can we find birds, mammals, reptiles, vertebrate fish, flowering plants, amphibians, lobe finned fish, etc. in the Cambrian?

Is it really that surprising that the ancestors of all modern lineages are found in the Cambrian? Isn't that what we should see if evolution is true?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope. It doesn't explain it, because it isn't a necessary consequence. A theory can only explain something if that something necessarily follows from the theory and other possibilities are excluded. You can't exclude other possibilities when you invoke a god, because a god could do whatever it wanted.

We can take the creation narrative and use it as well as other distinctive verses of the Bible. God could do whatever He wanted but He gave us a place to look.

 

[Oncedeceived]

well its like..
day 4:
God makes all swiming, creeping and flying things.
You say this means everything between start of life and birds.
Day 5:
god makes land animals and humans.
you say this means all modern life that came after birds.

So im wondering, if a new species of bird shows up in modern times how does that work since all birds were created before hand?

It doesn't say all birds were created then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I tried asking him how the Earth coped for 140 million years without a Sun*, but I got no answer...

*Third Day: fruit bearing trees were made. Science says this occurred 140 million years ago. Fourth Day: the Sun is made. Thus, the Sun is only 140 million years old, tops.

Fruit bearing trees were before the sun. Like I told you then, this is a gap that is not in evidence.


By the way check the gender of posters.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So where can we find birds, mammals, reptiles, vertebrate fish, flowering plants, amphibians, lobe finned fish, etc. in the Cambrian?

Is it really that surprising that the ancestors of all modern lineages are found in the Cambrian? Isn't that what we should see if evolution is true?

Evolution is a theory that man made to describe the natural world he is in, we know that life progressed a certain way. We know that living things do inherit traits and pass them on to following generations. So you look at the natural world and claim that it has to have natural causes, I look at the natural world and see that natural causes can not explain it satisfactorily.

You claim that all macroevolutionary processes are microevolution over long periods of time. Today with new technologies and new information we know that while this can explain some of the phenomena, it doesn't go across the board.

Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.

Source

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Fruit bearing trees were before the sun. Like I told you then, this is a gap that is not in evidence.

No, this is something completely contradictory to the evidence. Your assertion was that Genesis is in complete accordance with modern science - but this is not the case.

According to your chronology, fruit-bearing trees appeared on the Third Day (which you equate with the Paleozoic era), prior to the Sun on the Fourth Day (which must, therefore, be during or after the Paleozoic). This is contrary to modern science: the Sun appeared 4.5 billion years ago in the Hadeon eon, and fruit-bearing trees appeared only 140 million years ago in the late Mesozoic era.

So, either fruit-bearing trees are hundreds of billions of years old, or the Sun is merely a few hundred years old - both of which are explicitly rejected by science.

It's not just a gap in the evidence, it flies in the face of every piece of evidence uncovered.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you look at the natural world and claim that it has to have natural causes, I look at the natural world and see that natural causes can not explain it satisfactorily.

That's not it. We suspect that natural phenomena are due to natural causes, and then WE GO OUT AND FIND THEM. This pursuit has led to the knowledge we have today. Your method, of claiming that God did it, has not led to any knowledge of how the world works.

You claim that all macroevolutionary processes are microevolution over long periods of time.

I claim that the evidence is consistent with these mechanisms. This is the whole process of science, making a hypothesis and then testing it. This is the opposite of theism where a claim is made and it is never questioned. You have suggested just that. The claim that God made the universe is considered an axiom in your worldview, an unquestionable claim that is assumed to be true.

Today with new technologies and new information we know that while this can explain some of the phenomena, it doesn't go across the board.

Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.

Source

Microevolutionary processes include all of the processes that the author speaks of. It really is a semantic argument. If we ignore semantics then we are left with the genetic data. The differences between any two genomes is the accumulation of microevolutionary events in each lineage. There is no way around it. Macroevolution is divergence caused by different microevolutionary events between any two lineages. There are no macroevolutionary events that take place between generations, only microevolutionary events.

 

[Greg1234]

False. Among species that do not participate in horizontal genetic transfer, evolution can not produce violations of a nested hierarchy. Therefore, genetic adaptations that occur in one lineage can not be shuttled over to another lineage. However, a designer could easily do this. In fact, humans do it all of the time through genetic engineering. A perfect example is the Glofish. This fish carries an exact copy of a fluorescent protein from jellyfish allowing it to fluoresce under UV light. If humans can violate the nested hierarchy with ease, why couldn't God?

First of all, there are no species that "do not participate in horizontal gene transfer." They don't only when they didn't. And if they have, then they did. Mice transfer whenever the opportunity arises. Some Mice Have Become Immune to Poison Through Natural but Highly Unusual Evolution | Popular Science. Feeding on placenta is also a viable option if all else fails. “Since cats would be quite likely to scavenge and feed on baboon placentae, a possible exposure to the virus can be envisioned.”


Secondly, the glofish is only a violation of the nested hierarchy due to the fact that you

1. Already drew up your hierarchy.

2. And you observed the transplant.

Jellyfish and fish ultimately share a universal common ancestor in Darwinism and the explanation would be that " "There's no rule that says just because something can change, it will change or must change."

I can't help but be stunned by this claim. The nested hierarchy pattern made up the foundation of Darwin's theory. It was the light bulb moment for Darwin. In his notebooks you can actually see the moment at which Darwin started forming his idea. It started with this diagram:

See that diagram? It is a nested hierarchy. It formed the foundation for Darwinism, and it still forms the foundation of the modern theory.

The diagram today is supplemented with arrows depicting HGT. A web-like pattern with nested characteristics. Where characteristics are similar, one can just create a new node and attach to a given section. Then you say that it is an early transitional. Reptiles "are characterized by breathing air, laying shelled eggs (except for some vipers and constrictor snakes that give live birth), and having skin covered in scales and/or scutes." A platypus breathes air, it lays shelled eggs, and it has scales. It also has mammalian characteristics. So what's it called? An egg-laying mammal. Simple. A lung fish lays eggs, can breathe air, and has scales. Reptile? Nope. Fish, or more precisely, Lung-fish. When you have creatures which are so diverse that they cannot fit anywhere completely, you give them funny names. Like egg-laying mammal, Lung-fish. Can a creationist say that fish could never have evolved lungs? Of course not. It's there so it can. Vertebrate-vertebrate transfer is not required when bacteria are intermediaries. Where a bird and a human share the same genes it is-

1. Not because something can change it will change.

2. Bacteria transferred the information into a human. And bacteria transferred the same information into a bird. As you can see there was no direct transmission but it is the same thing.

3. Or you can just say direct transfer.

But the pattern of shared and derived characteristics IS PREDICTABLE. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Actually nothing and everything is predicted. It is a random unguided process where there are no limits, no predictions. That is why whales are supposedly terrestrial mammals which go back into the water. Until a whale or a similar creature is found, Darwinism is supposed to proceed from water to land. You would get that pattern no matter what you did.

If a species comes from a parrot then that species will have derived parrot characteristics not found in other lineages that were not descended from that parrot. That is the prediction. What is so hard to understand?

Actually it would not have "parrot characteristics." According to the ancestor chosen, that would be the characteristics assigned. That's why the oviparous qualities of the platypus are not "bird characteristics" or "fish characteristics" but "reptilian characteristics." Why not birds? Platypus sex is XXXXX-rated - 24 October 2004 - New Scientist

Then show me a bat that can be classified as a bird. Show me a bat that has derived features found in any feathered organism that is not found in other mammals.

If it did then it wouldn't have been referred to as a bat, but a bird. Or it would have a funny name. That's how it works. One cannot show a bat which has bird characteristics because it is already a bat. If it had bird characteristics then it would be a bird, and you would then say show me a bird which has bird characteristics and cancel yourself out. Thus silence on the issue. How do random mutations transform a deer to a whale with blubber and other characteristics but cannot give a bat feathers? If bats had feathers then a Creationist saying that a bat cannot evolve feathers would be invalid. In fact, a Creationist saying that anything cannot evolve is deemed invalid by Darwinism if it already there. Anything goes in Darwinism. It predicts everything and anything.

 

[Nostromo]

Stephen Gould is a peer-reviewed scientist that has his work in many peer reviewed journals.

I know who Stephen Jay Gould is, but I didn't see any peer-reviewed articles being cited.

Peer-review doesn't mean you do a medical and a body cavity search then you're certified to write whatever you please and be considered an authority.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't make him automatically right, or make every word that comes out of his mouth gospel.

A span of about 30 million years during the Cambrian period is manifested in the fossil record with the sudden appearance of many groups of animals which gave rise to many present day animals. Before the Cambrian period, the fossil record shows no precursors of today's animal groups other than microbes. Rather than being classified in the same group as the mollusks, worms, and brachiopods, scientists are now suggesting that the Orthrozanclus, the halkieriids and the wiwaxiids should be in a unique group of their own.

Source

Another source for you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know who Stephen Jay Gould is, but I didn't see any peer-reviewed articles being cited.

Peer-review doesn't mean you do a medical and a body cavity search then you're certified to write whatever you please and be considered an authority.

So are you claiming that there are no peer-reviewed material on the punctuated equilibrium? I didn't site one due to the fact that most are not available online.

His views are well known and have been reviewed by his peers and his theory is now an active theory on how evolution works.

If you want to discount what he has said in his work, please provide evidence for what is being claimed by someone of equal stature in the field.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. This isn't an extinction of all life. It's an apparent extinction of some life. And your source isn't a scientific source anyway.
2. The fossil record is incomplete, so it is very difficult to demonstrate extinction. That is doubly-difficult when none of the organisms have hard shells and so don't preserve well.
3. An extinction of some life, even most, would be expected with the advent of eyes, which would allow serious predation.

When there are no fossils during a twenty million year span I think that is pretty conclusive that there was no life during that long period of time.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, there are no species that "do not participate in horizontal gene transfer."

Let's put this another way. Which of your genes is from a giraffe? How does giraffe DNA make its way into the human gene pool?

Secondly, the glofish is only a violation of the nested hierarchy due to the fact that you

1. Already drew up your hierarchy.

2. And you observed the transplant.

The glofish carries an exact copy of a jellyfish gene. We don't need to observe the insertion of the DNA into the glofish to know this. Also, the hierarchy is determined by shared characteristics, not by man.

Jellyfish and fish ultimately share a universal common ancestor in Darwinism and the explanation would be that " "There's no rule that says just because something can change, it will change or must change."

There is a rule called the nested hierarchy, and the glofish is a violation of that rule.

So if humans can break the rule so easily, why couldn't God do it?

The diagram today is supplemented with arrows depicting HGT.

Not for the species that Darwin was focusing on, which are macroscopic, multicellular animals.

Where characteristics are similar, one can just create a new node and attach to a given section. Then you say that it is an early transitional.

So why don't we see a node connecting bats and birds that does not connect all mammals and all birds?

Reptiles "are characterized by breathing air, laying shelled eggs (except for some vipers and constrictor snakes that give live birth), and having skin covered in scales and/or scutes." A platypus breathes air, it lays shelled eggs, and it has scales.

Since mammals evolved from reptiles, why is this a problem? Isn't this exactly what we should see if mammals evolved from reptiles?

Mammals did not evolve from birds, so you should never see a mixture of derived bird and mammal features, AND YOU DON'T.

This is how you test the nested hiearchy.

A lung fish lays eggs, can breathe air, and has scales. Reptile?

Does a lung fish have reptilian scales? Nope. You fail.

2. Bacteria transferred the information into a human. And bacteria transferred the same information into a bird. As you can see there was no direct transmission but it is the same thing.

Not the same thing. The insertions are not identical, and the mutations acquired since insertion have differed in each species, just as the nested hierarchy expects we should see.

Actually nothing and everything is predicted.

I have shown just the opposite, and you continue to ignore it.

Actually it would not have "parrot characteristics." According to the ancestor chosen, that would be the characteristics assigned.

The characteristics a species has is the characteristics it is assigned. Why is that so hard to understand?

If it did then it wouldn't have been referred to as a bat, but a bird.

A species with feathers and mammary glands would be a transitional bird/mammal, a transitional that the theory of evolution says that we should NOT see. A transitional which breaks the nested hierarchy falsifies the theory of evolution. Therefore, the theory is testable, and it has passed those tests.

 

[Nostromo]

So are you claiming that there are no peer-reviewed material on the punctuated equilibrium?

I'm not sure, let me have a look at my previous post.

No... that doesn't seem to be in there.

His views are well known and have been reviewed by his peers and his theory is now an active theory on how evolution works.

If you want to discount what he has said in his work, please provide evidence for what is being claimed by someone of equal stature in the field.

Just telling me that he wrote something somewhere that was reviewed by his peers, maybe, isn't evidence. Before there's something for me to refute, you need to support your claim with the peer-reviewed 'documentation' you claimed to have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Uhm..Ignoring for a moment the names are not correct.

We still are all of those, we never stopped being them.
we're still 'fish' we're also 'reptile' and 'dino' then finally we added 'ape' to it.

(Keep in mind the names are wrong, but I am too lazy to go look up the proper names right now so I'll use them as placeholders to explain the concept. we sure as heck were never dino's for example xD)

Well not actual dino's of course. Therapsids are dinosaur like creatures which are considered the ancestor prior to dinosaurs. They died out prior to the dinosaurs long reign and because I was doing a quick answer I know that the African ape was preceded by other mammal ancestors.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't make him automatically right, or make every word that comes out of his mouth gospel.

He was going by the fossil evidence Chalnoth. If you feel he is in error, then please give me a reliable source that proves him wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not species-level evolution. That's evolution of an entire class. Way to move your goalposts.

And by the way, yes, even mammals still carry the properties of the reptiles they are descended from.

I said above species level.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

You have lost me. We are talking about macroevolution. I know that the term in science is ambiguous but for our discussion here at least, let us define macro as above species level of evolution.
​

 

[Chalnoth]

A span of about 30 million years during the Cambrian period is manifested in the fossil record with the sudden appearance of many groups of animals which gave rise to many present day animals. Before the Cambrian period, the fossil record shows no precursors of today's animal groups other than microbes. Rather than being classified in the same group as the mollusks, worms, and brachiopods, scientists are now suggesting that the Orthrozanclus, the halkieriids and the wiwaxiids should be in a unique group of their own.

Source

Another source for you.

1. That doesn't support your ridiculous claim of absolute extinction.
2. It's wrong, and I've already demonstrated it's wrong by showing that there are some animals in the Ediacaran which do appear to be the precursors of Cambrian forms.

 

[Chalnoth]

When there are no fossils during a twenty million year span I think that is pretty conclusive that there was no life during that long period of time.

Who said there were no fossils during that span?

 

[Chalnoth]

He was going by the fossil evidence Chalnoth. If you feel he is in error, then please give me a reliable source that proves him wrong.

Why? When you haven't provided a reliable source to demonstrate your absurd interpretation of his words?