Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[1Tonne]

Let’s start with the rate of morphological change. What about it’s rate is question posing for TOE? Is it too fast, too slow?

To be honest, I can't be bothered engaging with you. You have struggled to put sentences together, and because of this, I cannot be bothered engaging with you. But if another person asks on your behalf, I will answer. But as of now, your questions will remain unanswered. Have fun

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

On fine-tuning: yes, the full picture is complex and ongoing research continues. But that doesn’t erase the fact that many key constants fall within narrow ranges essential for life as we know it. It’s not a closed case, but it’s a significant scientific observation that raises important questions.

Fall into narrow ranges they may, but that does not automatically mean that anything is fine tuned, and to say they're fine tuned specifically for us is very self-centered and is just the puddle saying the hole it's in is designed for it. Especially since it begs the question of WHO designed it, which just falls into philosophical and religious debates.

On DNA as information: calling it a “code” is indeed an analogy, but a very precise and useful one. The digital, specified nature of genetic sequences is well established and critical to how biology functions. It’s not meant to reduce biology to simple code, but to highlight that the sequences carry complex, functional instructions, something fundamentally different from random chemicals.

Highlighting things is fine, but again, all this does is bring up special pleading and begging the question.

On the Cambrian explosion: yes, fossilisation bias exists, and the timing debates continue. But the relatively rapid emergence of diverse animal body plans without clear gradual precursors is still a key puzzle in evolutionary biology. Whether 3-4 million or 13-25 million years, it’s short geologically and raises questions about the mechanisms involved.

To be honest, I can't be bothered engaging with you. You have struggled to put sentences together, and because of this, I cannot be bothered engaging with you. But if another person asks on your behalf, I will answer. But as of now, your questions will remain unanswered. Have fun

Since you had to be unnecessarily rude to larniavc for asking a very pertinent and important question about your claims about the Cambrian Explosion: even at its lowest end of 3,000,000 years, that's still a massive time frame and more than long enough for live to evolve in, so why is it a problem for the Theory of Evolution?

None of these points alone “prove” design, but they represent meaningful scientific observations that challenge purely undirected explanations.

You're very right that they don't prove design in the slightest... so why are you treating them like they do? Because if you want to prove design, you need actual evidence, not inference and claims and analogies. Science deals in evidence, you've presented nothing of the sort.

 

[jasperr]

It is my perception that some (many?) theists are very uncomfortable with the thought that they have to decide on the purpose of life. They would prefer that responsibility lay elsewhere. That seems odd to me: if there were a God,then giving products of its creation the opportunity to determine their own purpose would surely be a magnificent gift.

A bit of a White Elephant? A Pandora's Box? Moral Hazard?

 

[1Tonne]

Since you had to be unnecessarily rude to larniavc for asking a very pertinent and important question about your claims about the Cambrian Explosion: even at its lowest end of 3,000,000 years, that's still a massive time frame and more than long enough for live to evolve in, so why is it a problem for the Theory of Evolution?

I wasn’t “unnecessarily rude.” Larniavc had repeatedly demanded “evidence please” without showing genuine engagement, tossed out condescending questions with minimal effort, and added nothing to the discussion but baiting tactics. If someone can’t even construct a proper sentence or act respectfully, I’m not obligated to treat them like a serious participant.
Now, to your question: Yes, 3 million years is a long time in human terms, but in geological terms, it’s short, especially when discussing the sudden appearance of most major animal body plans (phyla) with no clear gradual transitions in the fossil record. That’s the issue. The rate of morphological innovation during the Cambrian far outpaces what’s typically observed in evolutionary processes, and the lack of abundant precursors adds to the puzzle. Even some evolutionary biologists acknowledge this as a significant challenge and have proposed alternative mechanisms like punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, or niche-filling bursts to explain it, precisely because standard gradualism doesn't easily account for it. So yes, it poses real questions for the Theory of Evolution.
Dismissing it with “3 million years is plenty” oversimplifies the problem.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I wasn’t “unnecessarily rude.” Larniavc had repeatedly demanded “evidence please” without showing genuine engagement, tossed out condescending questions with minimal effort, and added nothing to the discussion but baiting tactics. If someone can’t even construct a proper sentence or act respectfully, I’m not obligated to treat them like a serious participant.

You were unnecessarily rude.

Now, to your question: Yes, 3 million years is a long time in human terms, but in geological terms, it’s short, especially when discussing the sudden appearance of most major animal body plans (phyla) with no clear gradual transitions in the fossil record. That’s the issue. The rate of morphological innovation during the Cambrian far outpaces what’s typically observed in evolutionary processes, and the lack of abundant precursors adds to the puzzle. Even some evolutionary biologists acknowledge this as a significant challenge and have proposed alternative mechanisms like punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, or niche-filling bursts to explain it, precisely because standard gradualism doesn't easily account for it. So yes, it poses real questions for the Theory of Evolution.
Dismissing it with “3 million years is plenty” oversimplifies the problem.

Yes, 3 million years is a short geological time, but when the topic is about the morphology of animals, biological beings, the time frame is still a great magnitude of time. We don't know how long the Cambrian lifeforms lived for; what their life expectancy was, how many years it took for a generation to become a generation, how many offspring they'd produce during reproduction. If they were short lived species that produced hundreds or even just dozens of young at a time, then 3,000,000 years isn't a barrier in the slightest for evolution to occur, especially if we do expand the time frame to the more commonly accepted timeframes of either 13,000,000 or 25,000,000 years. And yes, there are not a lot of precursor fossils to the Cambrian period (outside of those found in Avalon in Newfoundland that show such an explosion has happened before in Earth's history) but they do exist, otherwise we wouldn't be able to say what they evolved from.

Evolution is not linear and static process: it's dynamic, as the fossil record shows us, and other events outside of the Cambrian Explosion like the Great Dying/Permian-Triassic extinction event or the Late Devonian mass extinction event, or even the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, show that in the right circumstances, evolution can and will occur very quickly.

You say that 3 million years isn't enough for the theory of evolution. I find your claims entirely lacking and without any merit.