Evolution, one more argument against

[SkovandOfMitzae]

I listen to the biologos podcast quite a bit. Is this podcast more secular or Christian? Sometimes I come across Christian scientists on YouTube that enjoyable to listen to.

One possibility for the Cambrian explosion is that the rifting of rodinia and warming of seas after earths prior ice age produced an environment ideal for the evolutionary arms race to take place.

it’s a non religious podcast. I’m not sure if they are Christians, agnostic or atheist. It’s just a science podcast. BioLogos is good also but does not get anywhere near as technical and in-depth as The Common Descent Podcadt.

 

[Aussie Pete]

According to the theory of evolution, beavers didn't always build dams, but then one day a really brainy beaver must have come up with the brilliant idea of cutting down trees with its teeth and building a dam with a nest inside. Then all the other beavers must have copied it.

And as luck would have it, all these beavers just happened to have teeth that could munch through tree trunks.

Maybe a "mutation" occured in a beaver's brain that made it cut down trees and build dams.

Evolution in a nutshell. "Maybe."

 

[Aussie Pete]

Life is designed to change constantly, but the repair process is like the bumpers at a bowling alley. They keep the changes within the parameters that God designed. WHen things need to change, they do. When they need to remain the same, they do. Evolution is awesome design, by God. He planned for life to be exactly as we see it.

Evolution by design is an oxymoron. Adaptation, yes. God inserted enough genetic information to permit adaptation within the various "kinds".

 

[Buzzard3]

And quoting a creationists isn't going to win you anything.

So when a creationist cites the findings of independent (non-creationist) scientists, those findings are automatically rendered worthless?

 

[Buzzard3]

Evolution in a nutshell. "Maybe."

Yep, Darwinist story-tellers love that word. Here's another one - "if".

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

So when a creationist cites the findings of independent (non-creationist) scientists, those findings are automatically rendered worthless?

usually only because they lie and manipulate what was being said. Within the scientific community YECism is known to cultivate dishonestly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution by design is an oxymoron. Adaptation, yes. God inserted enough genetic information to permit adaptation within the various "kinds".

By tradition, Evo theory does not mention it was designed by God to run it's course. So it does seem contradictory, but only because Evo theory is incomplete in it's explanation. God planned for the spin of each atom. Yes, life evolves.

 

[Buzzard3]

usually only because they lie and manipulate what was being said.

Please provide an example of Stephen Meyer or an article published by evolutionnews.org that lies or manipulates what was said by independent scientists.

Within the scientific community YECism is known to cultivate dishonestly.

Neither Stephen Meyer nor evolutionnews.org subscribe to YEC. They accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth begun billions of years ago.

 

[BPPLEE]

usually only because they lie and manipulate what was being said. Within the scientific community YECism is known to cultivate dishonestly.

I have found some YEC apologists are deceptive in what they put out and I used to accept every new source I came upon debunking evolution but I've learned many of the arguments just don't hold up.

 

[Job 33:6]

Please provide an example of Stephen Meyer or an article published by evolutionnews.org that lies or manipulates what was said by independent scientists.

Neither Stephen Meyer nor evolutionnews.org subscribe to YEC. They accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth begun billions of years ago.

The "diagram" Prothero mentions is likely one of those imaginary Darwinist jobs, stacked with inferred branches based on the assumption of common descent.

He's arguing from "probable" organisms?

Wow, powerful stuff.

Yes, probable.

I'll highlight some key notes from Prothero:

"Meyer completely ignores the existence of the first two stages of the Cambrian (nowhere are they even mentioned in the book) and talks about the Atdabanian stage as if it were the entire Cambrian all by itself. His misleading figures (e.g., Fig. 2.5, 2.6, 3.8) imply that there were no modern phyla in existence until the trilobites diversified in the Atdabanian. That’s a flat out lie. Even a casual glance at any modern diagram of life’s diversification (Figure 1) demonstrates that probable arthropods, cnidarians, and echinoderms are present in the Ediacara fauna, mollusks and sponges are well documented from the Nemakit-Daldynian Stage, and brachiopods and archaeocyathids appear in the Tommotian Stage—all millions of years before Meyer’s incorrectly defined “Cambrian explosion” in the Atdabanian. The phyla that he lists in Fig. 2.6 as “explosively” appearing in the Atdabanian stages all actually appeared much earlier—or they are soft-bodied phyla from the Chinese Chengjiang fauna, whose first appearance artificially inflates the count. Meyer deliberately and dishonestly distorts the story by implying that these soft-bodied animals appeared all at once, when he knows that this is an artifact of preservation. It’s just an accident that there are no extraordinary soft-bodied faunas preserved before Chengjiang, so we simply have no fossils demonstrating their true first appearance, which occurred much earlier based on molecular evidence.


Mollusks, sponges, brachiopods, archaeocyathids, annelids, and debated filter feeders/echinoderms, trackways that appear to be from arthropods, diplichnites (because remember their bodies were soft so trackways are found without bodies in deep time) and cnidarians such as Hootia:
Haootia - Wikipedia
Are observed in the precambrian.

Even if we ignored the debated phylum, we would still have many established phylum which predate the Cambrian.

The bottom line is, Meyers work is basically just dishonest. It's fine to debate whether a couple phyla are present or not in the ediacaran. But it's completely unreasonable to suggest that no phyla existed before the Cambrian explosion. On the contrary evidence now indicates that most phyla actually did exist before the Cambrian, which wasn't know even just 20-30 years ago. But we know now. And to be fair about the topic, most likely this trend will continue with more and more established in the precambrian rather than their current debated status.

It's interesting that Meyer would argue that there are a lack of fossils predating the Cambrian explosion, but then go on to not mention rock layers that contain modern phyla that predate the Cambrian explosion.

 

[Job 33:6]

Another dishonest article by evolution news:
Tiktaalik Blown “Out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints | Evolution News

Sure. Critics will forever argue that there aren't enough fossils. So even if 100 more fossils were discovered linking major groups tomorrow, they'd still just call for more fossils between those links.

The reality is that every single time a fossil is found linking two groups, even if it's just of one single species, it completely defies all odds that such a thing would even exist if not for common descent. Consider a single tetrapod transitional of the Devonian. You have billions of years of rock layers in which this animal could be found. An entire planet of rock where it could be found. And yet, it just so happens to be in just the right layer of just the right period of time, of just the right lithology, of just the right morphological traits. 99% of possibilities would prove evolution wrong, and yet, in just a single find, we observe that 1% chance that vindicates the theory. And this happens over and over and over again. And so to get around this, we end up in this strange situation where we have to deny the age of the earth, or move toward the mysterious position of intelligent design, which doesn't really have any clear evidence behind itself but rather is based souly on an alleged lack of fossils. But of course, an argument against one thing has never been an argument for something else.

Here's a simple video to explain.

No matter how hard deniers of the theory may try, they will never have an explanation for how such predictions, as described in the video above, could possibly occur if not as a product of common descent.

As if a paleontologist were to throw a dart in pitch darkness, at a dart board the size of a football field, and with precision, were to hit an inch-wide target. That's what it's comparable to, to suggest that the fossil succession does not exist. Because that's what kind of odds it would take to pull off these predictions if evolution were not true.

The best critics have done is have argued that tetrapod tracks exist in the Devonian before tiktaalik. However, upon close examination by Spencer Lucas in "thinopus a critical review of Devonian tetrapod footprints", we find that such claims are contested as fish feeding traces. Well, maybe we can look at the bones to settle the dispute? Oh, there are no tetrapod bones predating tiktaalik. But wait, there is more, even if said polish traces were hypothetically from tetrapods, they'd still vindicate the theory anyway by demonstrating that tetrapods first appeared in the Devonian, right where the theory predicts after Silurian fish and before carboniferous amphibians.

Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints -article by Spencer Lucas.

And all the while, no explanation is given by critics for how Shubins prediction was even made in the first place beyond just pure blind luck, like throwing darts in the darkness.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Please provide an example of Stephen Meyer or an article published by evolutionnews.org that lies or manipulates what was said by independent scientists.

Neither Stephen Meyer nor evolutionnews.org subscribe to YEC. They accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth begun billions of years ago.

It’s unnecessary and a waste of time for me to select articles for that purpose and then having to explain to you and debste with you on why it’s so. If it’s trying to undermine the general scientific consensus on well established big picture stories it’s dishonest. I’m not here to spend very much time wasting time debating irrational and uneducated stances. Only YECist and their sheltered kids give any weight to YECism.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Maybe we can try it this way.

What’s a recent secular scientists article that was published that undermines evolution? What blog mentioned it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

it’s a non religious podcast. I’m not sure if they are Christians, agnostic or atheist. It’s just a science podcast. BioLogos is good also but does not get anywhere near as technical and in-depth as The Common Descent Podcadt.

Gutsick Gibbon is interesting too.

 

[Buzzard3]

If it’s trying to undermine the general scientific consensus on well established big picture stories it’s dishonest

Hilarious.
Ever heard of Galileo?

 

[BPPLEE]

It’s unnecessary and a waste of time for me to select articles for that purpose and then having to explain to you and debste with you on why it’s so. If it’s trying to undermine the general scientific consensus on well established big picture stories it’s dishonest. I’m not here to spend very much time wasting time debating irrational and uneducated stances. Only YECist and their sheltered kids give any weight to YECism.

YEC's are Christians just like those who believe in evolution who are Christians. What you believe about creation has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[Buzzard3]

It’s unnecessary and a waste of time for me to select articles for that purpose and then having to explain to you and debste with you on why it’s so. If it’s trying to undermine the general scientific consensus on well established big picture stories it’s dishonest. I’m not here to spend very much time wasting time debating irrational and uneducated stances. Only YECist and their sheltered kids give any weight to YECism.

I'm not a YEC.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Since you’re getting lost this was my statement.

usually only because they lie and manipulate what was being said. Within the scientific community YECism is known to cultivate dishonestly.

so my statement from the beginning was about YECism.

But let’s go with the OEC and ID.
Show me a secular article published in a journal that undermines evolution.

 

[Buzzard3]

If it’s trying to undermine the general scientific consensus on well established big picture stories it’s dishonest.

This comment - despite its anti-science absurdity - is actually somewhat useful ... it exemplifies the cult-like mentality of Darwinism:
First, everyone must 'follow the herd'. Second, the cult's teaching is infallible and final.
Third, anyone who doesn't follow the cult's teaching is maligned as dishonest or stupid or ignorant.

One of the cult's high priests, Richard Dawkins, expresses this same vindictive, intolerant Darwinist mentality:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

"Should Science Speak to Faith? (Extended version)". Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss, www.scientificamerican.com. June 19, 2007

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Hilarious.
Ever heard of Galileo?

You know that he’s an argument for pro science right? At every point something newly discovered has to be verified. Now the overwhelming majority of people know he was correct . Just like the overwhelming majority of people know evolution is correct. Anyways…. I’m not going to continue going back and forth with you. It’s a waste of my time to uselessly correct someone over middle school science.

But what it means when someone does not understand evolution is that they are uneducated on the subject. Yes that is what almost everyone believes. When someone can’t understand evolution X it means they really don’t understand the basis of any earth science. You’ve not demonstrated any understanding of it and you’ve not been able to counter any statements. So I can’t continue to spend hours in segments of daily responses to you and others like you. I wish this site allowed people to block others so that they can continue on without the annoyance. So the best thing I can do is just completely ignore you. So this is my last response to a few of y’all.