Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[tas8831]

The cambrian explosion is predated by tens of millions of years, by soft bodied organisms. This is no brief amount of time, biologically speaking.

"Facts are stupid things."

 

[tas8831]

I don't think the cambrian explosion is a problem either. It's a "thing" because current evolution theory can't explain it.

What is the Genesis-based 'explanation"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

The "common designer" claim is a claim of incompetence. Also with that explanation you should see chimeras, reptiles with mammal features and vice versa. We don't see that.

Also you should look into geology a bit so that you would see how we know that the Earth is many millions of years old. When one has several independent clocks and they all agree, and changing the clocks would be disastrous it is the only conclusion that has any merit.

Of course you can always let your personal bias get in the way. But honest Christians long ago realized that the Earth is old. There have been even young Earth creationists that worked in oil exploration. One does not need a degree to interpret some of the data. But after looking at the data and how it all holds together they tend to drop those beliefs. Fear is your only enemy when it comes to learning. One does not have to become an atheist to accept reality.

 

[Almost there]

I was "attacking" his relevant characteristics.

Such a simplistic definition you use.

I tune my response to the audience.

 

[Almost there]

What is the Genesis-based 'explanation"?

God did it.

 

[tas8831]

I simply don't buy the explanations I've heard.

And you're an IT guy, right?

As I've followed this debate for going on 40 years I've only seen evidence to bolster my position, so I'm still good with it.

Isn't that what creationists only ever do? See what they want to see?

Still waiting for the venues at which you will actually discuss the science, as opposed to these empty, self-serving missives.

 

[Almost there]

That is merely a gross canard that creationists repeat.

I really don't know about that. My knowledge of it is more in the AGW fake science front rather than this.

I actually had stopped debating this subject for almost a decade before I came to this site late last week. It's a temporary guilty pleasure for me right now. And there is no way I'll get into the weeds with lengthy "evidence ridden" replies. It's a waste of time, for both sides. Again, this is something I learned when arguing AGW

As I've said before, my biggest problem with the whole evolution "thing" is the discussion of things that happened "millions of years ago" as fact rather than hypothesis or conjecture.

 

[Ophiolite]

I tune my response to the audience.

You are several octaves too low.

 

[Almost there]

The "common designer" claim is a claim of incompetence. Also with that explanation you should see chimeras, reptiles with mammal features and vice versa. We don't see that.

Who told you that and why did you believe them?

Of course, it's also possible they did exist but went extinct. With ID there are all sorts of possibilities. When someone comes up with a better explanation, I'll buy it.

 

[tas8831]

Attempts to rescue the theory of evolution from this problem by using phylogenetic linkages are not based on much actual physical evidence.

Phylogenetic 'linkages' are premised on tested methodologies:


Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this is, in fact, based on tested methods:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

 

[tas8831]

To which I say, I disagree.

Sure, you keep writing things like this.

But you have explained that you will not be providing your rationale because you claim that you have done so before (paraphrased).

Opinions vary. Thanks so much for sharing yours!

You like saying that, too, as if you believe all opinions are equal and equally valid.

 

[tas8831]

Kinda interesting. For me, DNA supports ID more than evolution. Both sides can make a case for how it proves their position, because both are technically possible.

And yet only one can be tested using reliable and tested methods.

The other relies on mere conjecture and 'varying opinions.'

Lay out your argument as to why DNA supports ID, or just leave like you keep saying you will.

 

[tas8831]

Here's something that is known....

If a retrovirus inserts itself into germline cells, it becomes an inheritable ERV. This could be seen like some genetic "scar" that gets inherited by off spring.

Insertion spot is pretty random.

There are some 3000-ish known such virusses.
Potential insertion spots are theoretically some 3 billion places in humanoids.

In other words, for the same virus to insert itself in the same place twice, the theoretical probability is 1 in 3000*3 billion.

So it's pretty safe to say that if 2 individuals (let alone entire species) share an identical ERV, then those individuals had a common ancestor in which the actual infection took place.

We share many, many, many identical ERV's with chimps and other primates.

That's known. That's fact.

The obvious conclusion suggested by this data is...................

Oh, that is nothing - the Creator/designer just did it that way! see? Opinions vary! That opinion is just as valid as your evidence and data and statistical analysis-based one!

 

[Almost there]

Sure, you keep writing things like this.

And you keep responding.

 

[tas8831]

My experience has been that those really steeped in evolution research don't spend time arguing in places like this.

My experience is that creationists project.

My experience is that when a once legitimate scientist decides to churn out creationist propaganda, they abandon all sense of honesty and integrity, all for the glory of their interpretation of the bible.

My experience is that it is far more common to encounter a supremely confident creationist that has a background in a non-science field, commonly a technical field like IT or computer science or lower-level engineering than to find one with relevant biology or biochem or geology credentials.

it is also my experience that creationists that one encounters on the internet are nearly universal in their unyielding, unquestioning acceptance of anything written by a fellow creationist, even when it can be shown that the creationist was in error or even lied.


I figured that out the first time i encountered Walter ReMine back in the 1990s.

And in the intervening time, I can count on 2 fingers the number of creationists that have been open to reason and evidence.

 

[Almost there]

And yet only one can be tested using reliable and tested methods.

The other relies on mere conjecture and 'varying opinions.'

Lay out your argument as to why DNA supports ID, or just leave like you keep saying you will.

I looked at all my posts on this thread. I can't find where I said I would leave.

But actually, in a way, I left quite a while ago. I think you and I have different reasons for being here.

 

[Almost there]

And yet only one can be tested using reliable and tested methods.

Part of it. Sort of. Yes.

 

[Almost there]

My experience is that creationists project.

Actually, a lot of my posts on this subject ARE projection, but in a "being a man, I know the heart of man" sort of way.

The thing is, I see this as, at its core, an argument between two different religious beliefs, but only one side admits it.

 

[tas8831]

I looked at all my posts on this thread. I can't find where I said I would leave.

Right - "I'm outta here" is not "I'm leaving."

Whatever.

But actually, in a way, I left quite a while ago. I think you and I have different reasons for being here.

Always condescending mind-reading from pompous creationists, never anything of value or merit.

 

[tas8831]

God did it.

You joke, but in the end, that is actually all you have.

And I think that is why you are dodging and diverting and copping-out.