Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, of course. My bad. I was confusing Cloudina with Claudina, the evolutionary ancestor of the giraffe.
Do you have a response yet to the fact that Christians who accept evolution outnumber atheists in the west?I don't expect you to understand - you're just a pawn in a spiritual battle that you're oblivious to.
Controversial.I wonder if this will work.
If someone made an argument that the above wasn't ancestral to trilobites, and therefore evolution wasn't true, it would be a rather poor argument for multiple reasons.
Controversial.
"Spriggina's affinity is currently unknown; it has been variously classified as an annelid worm, a rangeomorph-like frond, a variant of Charniodiscus, a proarticulatan, or an arthropod perhaps related to the trilobites, or even an extinct phylum. Lack of known segmented legs or limbs, and glide reflection instead of symmetric segments, suggest an arthropod classification is unlikely despite some superficial resemblance."
(Wikipedia "Spriggina")
"Trilobites made a sudden appearance in the fossil record. There appears to be a considerable evolutionary gap from possible earlier precursors such as Spriggina, which is found in the 550-million-year-old Ediacaran-age rocks of Australia, and thus predates trilobites by some 30 million years ...
Morphological similarities between trilobites and earlier arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other "trilobitomorphs" of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian are ambiguous enough to make a detailed analysis of their ancestry complex."
(Wikipedia "Trilobite")
"many Ediacaran experts, including McMenamin, have also noted that Spriggina specimens show no evidence of eyes, limbs, mouths, or anuses, most of which are known from fossil trilobites. Other paleontologists remain skeptical about whether Spriggina does in fact exhibit genal spines, noting that good specimens seem to show relatively smooth edges with no protruding spines. In addition, analysis of the best recent specimens of Spriggina shows that it does not exhibit bilateral symmetry, undermining earlier attempts to classify it as a bilaterian animal, and by implication an arthropod. Instead, Spriggina exhibits something called “glide symmetry” in which the body segments on either side of its midline are off set rather than aligned. As geologist Loren Babcock of Ohio State University notes, “The zipper-like body plans of some Ediacaran (Proterozoic) animals such as Dickinsonia and Spriggina involve right and left halves that are not perfect mirror images of each other.” The lack of such symmetry, a distinctive feature of all bilaterian animals, and the absence in Spriggina specimens of many other distinguishing features of trilobites, has left the classification of this enigmatic organism uncertain.
("Darwin's Doubt", pp. 82-83)
How many times have you ignored genetic evidence?
After a while it stops being ignorance and becomes wilful dishonesty.
Seems like a disingenuous response for reasons noted in my prior post. Also, spriggina is generally considered bilaterally symmetrical. And it may very well have had a mouth and eyes.
But regardless, there are many reasons that the above argument just isn't reasonable. One being that, if critics of evolution have to dwelve into the deep depths of the precambrian, where fossils transition to microscopic soft bodied species, it just looks bad for their position in light of the next 600 million years of fossils.
It would be like going through recordings of Michael Jordan's life and finding a video of when he was 10 years old, watching him miss a free throw, and then saying that he was never a good basketball player.
And what that does is, it put God in a box that is ever decreasing in size. Because what happens is, and this keeps happening hundreds of times over, people do find indisputable ancestors to various species. And then critics say, well what's the ancestor of that ancestor? Until they go so far back that they start arguing about precambrian (typically metamorphosed and ancient billion year old rock, the oldest of the old) microscopic soft bodied organisms (that don't have bones and so are less likely to be fossilized and are so tiny that they're less likely to be seen at all).
Meanwhile, in the precambrian, you still have a whole collection of bilaterians, cnidarians, mollusks, sponges, annelids etc. And the best counter you find is "well that animal doesn't have an anus!" Even though it's actually likely that spriggina did in fact have an anus, and you get people saying that it wasn't bilaterally symmetrical, yet anyone with two eyeballs can draw a line down the center of it's body and see that it is symmetrical on either side of the line.
But critics would rather argue the minutia of details, unknowingly pushing God into a smaller and smaller and smaller box as more ancestral fossils continue to pour out of the fossil record.
Remember, in Darwin's time, there were no transitional fossils. Literally not a single one was known.
So the question is, do you want to keep pushing God into a smaller and smaller box, or do you want to just give God credit for the fossil succession? I think the latter is the inevitable conclusion for theists
I forgot to mention that Spriggina fossils have been found in only one location - the Flinders Ranges in South Australia ... unlike triolobite fossils, which are found all over the world.Seems like a disingenuous response for reasons noted in my prior post.
I forgot to mention that Spriggina fossils have been found in only one location - the Flinders Ranges in South Australia ... unlike triolobite fossils, which are found all over the world.
I give God the credit for the history of life on earth ... whatever that history is, which cannot be known.Seems like a disingenuous response for reasons noted in my prior post. Also, spriggina is generally considered bilaterally symmetrical. And it may very well have had a mouth and eyes.
But regardless, there are many reasons that the above argument just isn't reasonable. One being that, if critics of evolution have to dwelve into the deep depths of the precambrian, where fossils transition to microscopic soft bodied species, it just looks bad for their position in light of the next 600 million years of fossils.
It would be like going through recordings of Michael Jordan's life and finding a video of when he was 10 years old, watching him miss a free throw, and then saying that he was never a good basketball player.
And what that does is, it put God in a box that is ever decreasing in size. Because what happens is, and this keeps happening hundreds of times over, people do find indisputable ancestors to various species. And then critics say, well what's the ancestor of that ancestor? Until they go so far back that they start arguing about precambrian (typically metamorphosed and ancient billion year old rock, the oldest of the old) microscopic soft bodied organisms (that don't have bones and so are less likely to be fossilized and are so tiny that they're less likely to be seen at all).
Meanwhile, in the precambrian, you still have a whole collection of bilaterians, cnidarians, mollusks, sponges, annelids etc. And the best counter you find is "well that animal doesn't have an anus!" Even though it's actually likely that spriggina did in fact have an anus, and you get people saying that it wasn't bilaterally symmetrical, yet anyone with two eyeballs can draw a line down the center of it's body and see that it is symmetrical on either side of the line.
But critics would rather argue the minutia of details, unknowingly pushing God into a smaller and smaller and smaller box as more ancestral fossils continue to pour out of the fossil record.
Remember, in Darwin's time, there were no transitional fossils. Literally not a single one was known.
So the question is, do you want to keep pushing God into a smaller and smaller box, or do you want to just give God credit for the fossil succession? I think the latter is the inevitable conclusion for theists
Life has to begin somewhere, does it not?
You have to understand the concept of the evolutionary arms race. Think about the garden of Eden, God began people somewhere. This same logic holds true in evolution.
Trilobites are like the 21st century where they've become dominant and their feature have become a staple. The ediacaran would be more akin to the garden of Eden, where life first arrives, there is little predatory competition and so life diverges in many unpredictable and bizarre ways. Then once ideal forms of predation come into existence, life then is driven toward fixated and successful trilobite features.
And that's why a lot of early animals were soft bodied. They didn't evolve shells yet. But when they did, it stuck. Same with teeth. Animals didn't have teeth back then, but when they evolved teeth, everything since has had teeth.
The ediacaran is the beginning of beginnings with macro fossils. It doesn't really get earlier than that well, we are pushing earlier with microscopic fossils and soft bodied ones, but in practical terms, it is the beginning.
And I'm not saying that this is what scripture was talking about, I'm just drawing an analogy.
I give God the credit for the history of life on earth ... whatever that history is, which cannot be known.
I forgot to mention that Spriggina fossils have been found in only one location - the Flinders Ranges in South Australia ... unlike triolobite fossils, which are found all over the world.
Odd come back to evidence that allows people to know things.I give God the credit for the history of life on earth ... whatever that history is, which cannot be known.
Spoken like a true Darwinist missionary, whose only reason for being on this Christian site is to spread the gospel of evolution.You leave out willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance.
We' ve never seen a well informed creationist
Spoken like a true Darwinist missionary, whose only reason for being on this Christian site is to spread the gospel of evolution.
So why do so many Christians accept it without it harming their faith?Spoken like a true Darwinist missionary, whose only reason for being on this Christian site is to spread the gospel of evolution.
So " above it all" are we?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?