Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[DogmaHunter]

I get that. Ptolomy's model of the solar system also matched like a glove.

Except that it didn't.

Until it didn't.

New data can force one to change ones views. It's called making progress. It's a good thing.

And not to put too fine a point on it, it DOES not match like a glove. It's why the hypotheses/theories keep changing and getting refined, just like Ptolomy's did, until he finally had to throw the whole thing out.

Yep. It's also why "creation" was thrown out in favor of evolution.
You trying to turn back time here would be the equivalent of throwing out modern models to return to ptolomy's model wich was discarded ages ago.

So sure, what we observe and predict is accurate insomuch as it applies to what we are seeing right now.

Myeah, it's kind of hard to keep into account evidence that we don't have or doesn't exist....

How it applies to things that happened before men witnessed and recorded it is the realm of hypothesis.

Utterly false.

If that were true, then forensic science is nothing but a money sink and no murder that had no witnesses could EVER be solved.

It's a ridiculous proposition. Events of the past leave evidence that can be investigated in the present. To suggest otherwise, is something that can not be taken seriously at all.

One can say it happened as they describe it, but they need to remind the reader that it is just their informed opinion.

No.

For example:

It burned there. I don't need to have witnessed the fire, to conclude that. And it's not merely "my opinion".

If you can't see your reasoning error here, then I don't know what to tell you.

I think one of the problems here is that I don't really have any "special" respect for scientists. They are like the rest of us. They have areas in which they are talented and many exploit those talents to their fullest, as they should, just like those talented in music, engineering, art, etc.

Ok. Not seeing how that is relevant, but ok.
This doesn't change anything about the accuracy of evolution theory or the evidence in support of it.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution theory is seen as accurate or solid "because scientists believe it". That is very false. It's rather accurate and solid, because of the amount and nature of evidence that supports it.

But I see this world as "God's ant farm". I means that though I see them as very knowledgeable in their field, and perhaps smarter than all the other ants, at the end of the day, they are still just an ant. And they cannot comprehend even the simplest of tasks, like brewing a nice cup of coffee.

Uhu. Perhaps that's your problem and not mine, or that of scientists.

So with all of this talk about evolution, I consider the source.

Your second mistake. The source doesn't actually matter. Ideas / claims fall and stand on their own merrit, not on who utters them.

And after 200 years of fierce testing and harsh scientific scrutiny, evolution theory is more solid and more supported then ever. It could even be said to be the most supported theory in all of science.

I mean, if you're gonna diss on the accuracy of scientific theories... then there are a LOT of theories with MUCH more problems and even contradictions that you could choose from.

I find it curious how people like you, end up picking the most solid of them all to argue over. Curious, but also unsurprising, considering what your a priori religious beliefs are.

 

[Almost there]

In other words you are a science denier. Thanks for tipping your hand. No wonder you cannot provide anything of substance.

Actually no. I got straight A's in science in High School, was at the top of my class in College Chemistry (until I dropped out), and was a member of the Boeing Astronomy club back when I started my IT career in the early 80's.

But I am a very binary thinker. It seems to be very easy for me to distinguish between known facts and claims/opinions/conjecture. It's one of my strengths in IT.

 

[mindlight]

Fossils discovered demonstrate that cambrian life originated as soft bodied life forms.

No one should ever expect to find fossils of soft bodied organisms pre dating the first forms of complex life. Especially not in precambrian rock. They will forever be sparse, as soft bodied organisms do not readily fossilize. And, beyond that, beyond 600 or so million years ago, you get highly metamorphosed and volcanic rock in greater proportions. Which of course would digest most soft bodied fossils.

You may as well ask for fossils for the first abiogenic life form or the very first life form on earth.

Thankfully, after 600 million years ago, life developed skeletons and shells, and so 600 million years until present day, we have an increasingly apparent fossil succession.

Right softbodied precursors that require no physical evidence to believe in. I understand your argument but surely you can see that it is speculative.

 

[Almost there]

Our observations match the expectations of evolution. They do not match the expectations of creation/intentional design. At all.

Regarding the first sentence, why must the various evolution theories keep changing after tests then? Regarding the last two sentences. I strongly disagree.

There is not other explanation that I've seen that explains the existence and complexity of life. And the explanation needs to cover both to have any validity whatsoever.

Creation explains both. Of course, you may disagree. I give you permission.

 

[Ophiolite]

I thought you bought the book. The second edition epilogue at the back. Matzkes arguments was basically based on cladistic charater trait comparison but lacking fossil evidence to support basically involved the postulation of ghost lineages in the fossil record.

As I stated in my post quoting the book, I have the First Edition. I thought you knew that which was why you had taken the trouble to point out the argument was in the Second Edition.

Based on your brief summary I don't see anything conclusively faulty. Palaeontologists have been postulating as yet unidentified lineages for a very long time. It's part of the process of prediction. (Something some creationists claim ToE is incapable of.) So, what is it you find unscientific about this approach?

 

[pitabread]

Creation explains both.

Creation doesn't really explain anything though. It's just a plug; a stop gap for lack of a real explanation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sparrows are a kind but there are 43 different species of sparrow within that. Dogs are a kind that includes alsatians and poodles.

Yes, thank you. Now could you answer my specific question? Which taxonomic level constitutes a different kind?

Alternatively, if you don't want a serious conversation, but prefer to act like a troll just let me know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe there is some truth to that. I think there is a reason for that. This is a Christian form site. It's about Christianity, not science. Science is about how. Christianity is about why. The threads regarding "why" are the ones I can really sink my teeth into, but the science part is a fun distraction, kinda like video games or playing my bass.

No, this part of the forum is about science. sfs is a active worker in the field and he posts here quite often. If you want a technical answer ask him. He will gladly give you an answer. By the way, one does not need to believe the myths of Genesis to be a Christian, worldwide most do not. Creationism is largely an American disease.

What kind of bass? Largemouth or Smallmouth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually no. I got straight A's in science in High School, was at the top of my class in College Chemistry (until I dropped out), and was a member of the Boeing Astronomy club back when I started my IT career in the early 80's.

But I am a very binary thinker. It seems to be very easy for me to distinguish between known facts and claims/opinions/conjecture. It's one of my strengths in IT.

And now you are a science denier. Binary thinking is not necessarily the best approach to problem solving, especially when shades of gray are involved. And what level of chemistry did you get to or take? I went to a large university where there were quite a few different chemistry courses, from chemistry for the football team to a majors level class. I learned from one non-majors level physics class that I took, it was on twentieth century physics, always take the majors level classes if you want to learn anything. The best lecturers are saved for the classes where people have a strong desire to learn.

By the way, I never implied that peer review is always right. It is quite often wrong. But ideas that avoid peer review are almost always wrong. Are you familiar with cold fusion? That idea was proposed by chemists, Phd professors that were experts in their own field, but had very little physics education. There positive results were due to experimental error, they avoided peer review. Physicists laughed about it when it came out and they were right. That is why peer review is a must. It separates out ideas that are totally worthless from ones that have a chance of being right.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, thank you. Now could you answer my specific question? Which taxonomic level constitutes a different kind?

Alternatively, if you don't want a serious conversation, but prefer to act like a troll just let me know.

Good grief- whatever Canis and Passer Domesticus are

 

[mindlight]

As I stated in my post quoting the book, I have the First Edition. I thought you knew that which was why you had taken the trouble to point out the argument was in the Second Edition.

Based on your brief summary I don't see anything conclusively faulty. Palaeontologists have been postulating as yet unidentified lineages for a very long time. It's part of the process of prediction. (Something some creationists claim ToE is incapable of.) So, what is it you find unscientific about this approach?

Science requires the ability to demonstrate what it says. Speculative analogous rationalisations based on stuff it can demonstrate is not science.

 

[Ophiolite]

Good grief- whatever Canis and Passer Domesticus are

Please drop the faux outrage. I asked you a specific question that you chose to evade giving a meaningful answer to. If we are to have serious discussion on a scientific subject then we need to employ the appropriate scientific terminology. "Kinds" is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. [If any one is entitled to outrage, real or affected, it would be me.]

Now, as to your response here. Canis is a genus. Passer domesticus is a species. Based on this I am at a loss to determine which taxonomic level you think constitutes a kind. It seems that when you are talking about dogs, wolves and coyotes then kinds are genera, but when you reference sparrows, they are species. Would it be simpler if we just agreed that you lack the education in this topic to deliver a cogent argument? Or will you give me a properly considered answer to my question; which taxonomic level constitutes a "kind".

 

[Ophiolite]

Science requires the ability to demonstrate what it says. Speculative analogous rationalisations based on stuff it can demonstrate is not science.

Until and unless I have read the material you are refering to in the second edition I can hardly accept your characterisation that it is "speculative analogous rationalisation".

I have assumed you meant cannot demonstrate rather than can demonstrate. (That Freud chap was a bit of a cad.)

 

[Job 33:6]

Right softbodied precursors that require no physical evidence to believe in. I understand your argument but surely you can see that it is speculative.

If you saw 500 million years of evolution going back through time to the cambrian, then as rocks became more metamorphosed and as fossils lost their shells and became tougher to find (though soft bodied fossils have been found in the earliest parts of the cambrian and predating the explosion), then it is less plausible to propose the idea that cambrian organisms appeared out of thin air, than to propose the idea that they simply didnt fossilize (which is already evident in the less and less fossilized soft bodied organisms as you go further and further back in time).

 

[Almost there]

By the way, I never implied that peer review is always right. It is quite often wrong. But ideas that avoid peer review are almost always wrong.

I agree. My point is that sometimes an attempt is made to get it peer reviewed and they can't even get that. It's sort of a blacklist thing.

And one of Tesla's biggest flaws was not adhering to the scientific method. It doesn't mean he was wrong - or right - about anything.

Science has to have rules to best serve its function, but at the end of the day, science is just a man made word for something that man does.

Same can be said of art and football. None of these things belong on a pedastal, and in the great scheem of things, they all have equal value. Science is a great method to discover how things work. But one must be cautions in applying test results to broadly.

Meanwhile, creation proves ID within the very fabric of our universe. And I agree with the scientist in Scientific American in the 90's doing DNA research: The more we understand it, the more it looks like someone designed it.

All the evolution hypothesis has, regarding the creation of species, is a lot of monkeys at a lot of typewriters for a lot of years. That's not enough "evidence" to convince me.

 

[tas8831]

You were attacking him rather than what he actually wrote. Ad-hominem. Against the man.

I was "attacking" his relevant characteristics.

Such a simplistic definition you use.

Back in the early 2000's, I actually kept a link active to a good logical fallacy site because I participated in a few sites, one of which was on this subject, where logical fallacies were the tool of the "other side". The favorites are ad-hominem, straw man and red herring. But there is also a lot of Ad-populum. You know, as in "scientific consensus".

Such projection you employ - did you link to a site that defined psychological phenomena like projection?

It is when you accuse others of doing what you do.

Ad populum, like in 'all these Christians cannot be wrong' or 'all these Christians believe the bible, so there must be something to it'?


Projection.


This site you used to link to - did it mention the Dunning-Kruger effect? How about the ol' "I used to write all about this science stuff, but I don;t wanna do that no more"? That is a classic.

 

[tas8831]

And I agree with the scientist in Scientific American in the 90's doing DNA research: The more we understand it, the more it looks like someone designed it.

And you agree NOT because you understand the data or genetics, but because of your presuppositions.

All the evolution hypothesis has, regarding the creation of species, is a lot of monkeys at a lot of typewriters for a lot of years. That's not enough "evidence" to convince me.

And thus we have a grand example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.


So, an IT guy is not 'convinced' of evolution. So tell us all - what convinced you that Genesis has merit?

 

[Job 33:6]

@mindlight

Its like saying, if a crowd of people walked through the snow during a snow storm. The longer the footprints of those people sit in the snow, the more and more difficult they are to find (nature covers them up during the storm). So, if you saw footprints going further and further back in the snow, there is no reason to believe that a person of the crowd (cambrian fossils) simply appeared out of thin air, when there are tracks that are just barely visible from the entire crowd, that go further back in time, prior to the cambrian.

You may as well be asking for the very first footprint, which is so far back in time, that theres just no way such a thing would exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. My point is that sometimes an attempt is made to get it peer reviewed and they can't even get that. It's sort of a blacklist thing.

That is merely a gross canard that creationists repeat. If they could find an actual article that was rejected for improper reasons they would have a field day with it.

And one of Tesla's biggest flaws was not adhering to the scientific method. It doesn't mean he was wrong - or right - about anything.

I would not know. I hear all sorts of stories about Tesla, and he did have some major accomplishments, but he also appeared to be invested in some "woo".

Science has to have rules to best serve its function, but at the end of the day, science is just a man made word for something that man does.

Same can be said of art and football. None of these things belong on a pedastal, and in the great scheem of things, they all have equal value. Science is a great method to discover how things work. But one must be cautions in applying test results to broadly.

The scientific method has respect because it works. Find something else that does and it too will earn respect.

Meanwhile, creation proves ID within the very fabric of our universe. And I agree with the scientist in Scientific American in the 90's doing DNA research: The more we understand it, the more it looks like someone designed it.

You would need to quote that in context. And that is only the opinion of an author of an article in SA, most of which are not scientists. And no, creation does not prove ID, your logic is fatally flawed if you think that has ever happened.

All the evolution hypothesis has, regarding the creation of species, is a lot of monkeys at a lot of typewriters for a lot of years. That's not enough "evidence" to convince me.

But that is only because you stick your head in the sand. Your claim about monkeys shows that you have no clue. Yes, not only are you an ape, you are a monkey too if you claim that both South American and Old World monkeys are both monkeys. If you understood the mechanism of evolution it is not a question of would life evolve, it would only be of how would life evolve. You may be making the classic creationist error of forming an odds argument on how unlikely humans would evolve. There is no doubt that it is almost zero. But if we looked at the events that led up to you being born we could quickly calculate similar odds.

Or look at the lottery. The odds of any one particular person winning the Powerball is hundreds of millions to one. The odds that someone will win it sooner or later is almost one. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are mountains of it for the theory of evolution. It is why it is a theory, as high as one can get in the world of science. While creationism has not even put its shoes on and it smells like changing time again.

 

[Almost there]

No, this part of the forum is about science. sfs is a active worker in the field and he posts here quite often. If you want a technical answer ask him. He will gladly give you an answer. By the way, one does not need to believe the myths of Genesis to be a Christian, worldwide most do not. Creationism is largely an American disease.

What kind of bass? Largemouth or Smallmouth?

Smallmouth.

Interestingly, I don't literally buy the creation story in Genesis either. The only way I see the earth being 6000 years old is in the same vein that five minutes after God created Adam, Adam was five minutes old but looked to be 20 or 30.

But I also believe God was being very "coy" about how he created everything, lest he give away the show. He avoided talk of matter at the subatomic level, for example. After all, the bible is not about science. Christianity is not about science any more than it is about bowling.

And my ONLY beef with so many of the evolution apologists is that they take the facts we know, from experimentation, and then draw conclusions about what "must have" happened millions of years ago. But they don't really know and they could be dead wrong. Sadly, sans the aforementioned DeLorean, there is no way we will ever know. So they feel sort of compared to "claim" it's true. Now, "assuming" it is true to further augment experimentation is one thing, but not the same.

And the reason I use Ptolomy is because his theory did work up to a point. Many evolution theories work up to a point. And many have been forced to change or be abandoned when testing forced scientists hands. And I suspect further refinement will continue until either we unlock pretty much the whole thing (as we've mostly done with the solar system), or it could come crashing down as Ptolomy's did. But it is significantly more complex with many, many more rabbit trails.

And a little off topic: When evolutionists see common ancestry, I see common designer. First God created the leggo bricks and everything is made of leggo bricks. Of course they have "common ancestry". It is what you would expect with ID.

BTW, big bang = let there be light