Evolution happens

Buzzard3 said:

So you're saying the very same observations in the fossil record that gave rise to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium are used to test it? If so, that is not a test; it's just a dumb circular argument.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, there is no empirical evidence that suggests a sudden change in the environment will produce the macroevolutionary changes evident in the fossil record, much less sudden macroevolutionary changes.

Click to expand...

So, to sum up, if PE cannot be tested by the fossil, and lacks support in extant organisms, it's looks suspiciously like a dud theory and yet another case of Darwinist story-telling.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I am amazed that there are people who think that the Cambrian Explosion is some sort of slam-dunk against evolution when the explosion covers a MASSIVE time frame of 13 to 25 MILLION years.

That is an enormous amount of time and more than long enough for new morphological forms and new animals to appear.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I am amazed that there are people who think that the Cambrian Explosion is some sort of slam-dunk against evolution when the explosion covers a MASSIVE time frame of 13 to 25 MILLION years.

That is an enormous amount of time and more than long enough for new morphological forms and new animals to appear.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I am amazed that there are people who think that the Cambrian Explosion is some sort of slam-dunk against evolution when the explosion covers a MASSIVE time frame of 13 to 25 MILLION years.

That is an enormous amount of time and more than long enough for new morphological forms and new animals to appear.

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

Yep, it took sooooo long that paleontologists called it an "explosion".

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

S. J. Gould said it was 5 million years.

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

S. J. Gould said it was 5 million years.

Click to expand...

Gene2memE said:

Do you know the difference between anatomical modernity and behavioural modernity?



Except Humans have been:

Wearing clothes for at least 150,000 years
Making jewelry for at least 90,000 years
Making glues for at least 70,000 years
Making art for at least 65,00 0 years
Playing music for at least 50,000 years
Weaving for at least 35,000 years
Making ceramics for at least 28,000 years
Planting fields for at least 23,000 years
Domesticating animals for at least 16,000 years
Doing dentistry for at least 9,000 years
Smelting metals and making bricks for at least 7,000 years

Either all of this happened before humans "suddenly became brainy", or your potted hypothesis is incorrect.

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

I was referring to the appearance of the first organism from inanimate matter - abiogenesis - which is a scientific impossibility. It is clear scientific evidence of divine creation.

Click to expand...

ottawak said:

You seem to be laboring under the egregious assumption that a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis would rule out divine creation. It does not,

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

You may not find it puzzling, but many paleontogists and evolutionary scientists do.

Jun-Yuan Chen, a Chinese paleontologist who is an acknowledged expert on the Cambrian explosion, goes so far as to state that the Cambrian explosion contradicts Darwinian theory.

"In his February lecture at the Burke Museum of the University of Washington, Chen described many of the Chengjiang fossils and argued that their abrupt appearance in the early Cambrian was a problem for Darwinian evolution. Darwin’s theory predicts that minor taxonomic differences (such as species and genera) gradually evolve into larger differences (such as classes and phyla), whereas the fossils show that the phyla and many classes appeared first and then diversified into a variety of genera and species. Chen called this “top-down” evolution, to contrast it with the “bottom-up” evolution required by Darwin’s theory.

Afterwards, scientists in the audience asked him a lot of questions about specific fossils, but they completely avoided the topic of Darwinian evolution.

When Chen later asked me why, I told him that perhaps they were just being polite, because most American scientists disapprove of criticizing Darwinism. At that he laughed, and said: “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
( ""In China We Can Criticize Darwin": Prelude", evolutionnews.org)

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

Yep, it took sooooo long that paleontologists called it an "explosion".

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

There is a huge evolutionary gap between any Ediacaran biota/"small, shelly fauna" and the animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion.

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

Try finding anything that resembles a close evoluionary ancestor of a Trilobite, for example.

Click to expand...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

No, not the same observations, new observations. PE was proposed to explain the sudden appearance of fossils with no apparent steadily evolving predecessors, suggesting rapid evolution. The theory implies and predicts that there should be lineages showing long periods of relative evolutionary stasis punctuated with rapid evolution. Such periods of stasis have been observed in the fossil record.

Incorrect; rapid evolution has been observed often - for example, antibiotic resistance and the topical SARS-CoV-2 virus; it's been observed in birds in the Galapagos islands (speciation), in fish in polluted rivers, and many other instances. The timescale of human observation is not generally sufficient to observe major morphological changes, but speciation has been observed:

Evidence from Observed Speciation
Watching speciation Occur: Observations
Speciation Observed - Again
Speciation in a Lab Flask
Speciation of Wasps Observed
8 Examples of Evolution in Action

However, the fossil record covers geological timescales, so 'sudden' means tens or hundreds of thousands of years rather than millions of years. Over these timescales, lots of relatively small changes can accumulate into major changes.

As already explained, that's not the case.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

If that's true, how many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

Well its not really a matter of how many acts .. following this part:

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

That's Genesis 2.

I'd like to know how many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

Click to expand...

ottawak said:

You seem to be laboring under the egregious assumption that a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis would rule out divine creation. It does not, and that has been a settled matter of Roman Catholic theology for centuries. Where have you been?

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

Howz this, then(?):

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

A naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis? Now that's funny! Puny humans have got ZERO chance of ever explaining it.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

I'm looking for a number, but I'm getting letters of the alphabet.

Click to expand...