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.
It only seems like magic until you know how the trick is done.
I suspect the "know" is delusion.It only seems like magic until you know how the trick is done.
I suspect the "know" is delusion.
It seems to me that the theory of evolution is a very simplistic nineteenth-century idea that attempts (in vain) to explain something that is actually inexplicable.
What other scientific theories do you feel that way about?I suspect the "know" is delusion.
It seems to me that the theory of evolution is a very simplistic nineteenth-century idea that attempts (in vain) to explain something that is actually inexplicable.
What "actual results"?Except that you've not once shown how it is anything of the sort. If it was delusion, then why it would be expanded on and used for over a century, with actual results?
According to ToE and common ancestry, disparity (ie, differences in morphology and function) occurs only after much diversification of species.And that's a problem the Cambrian Explosion gives to the theory of evolution how? You're just saying it's a problem and doing nothing to explain how it is except quoting other people.
I haven't read "Darwin's Doubt" in its entirety, but it specifically focuses on theI was wondering if he made arguments against fossils beyond the ediacaran-cambrian beginning of life time-frames.
He doesn't argue that the Cambrian biota don't have precursors, but (if memory serves) that there is a distinct lack of an evolutionary pattern leading up the Cambrian.It sounds like he denies evolution to me, given what appears to be a belief that Cambrian species don't have precursors.
These ideas sound contradictory. Given that a precursor would be identified by cladistic patterns. What do you mean?He doesn't argue that the Cambrian biota don't have precursors, but (if memory serves) that there is a distinct lack of an evolutionary pattern leading up the Cambrian.
According to ToE and common ancestry, disparity (ie, differences in morphology and function) occurs only after much diversification of species.
Imagine beginning with one population of a certain organism ... it will take many many generations and many many speciations before organisms evolve that are significantly different in morphology and function to the original organisms. The time it would take for a different phylum, for example, to evolve from the original phylum would be immense. Therefore the pattern predicted by ToE is diversity first, followed much later by disparity.
But that pattern is not what we see in the Cambrian. We see disparity first - the sudden appearance of multiple phyla - followed by diversity within each phylum. That pattern is the opposite of what ToE predicts!
Therefore the Cambrian explosion represents a contradiction of ToE.
According to ToE and common ancestry, disparity (ie, differences in morphology and function) occurs only after much diversification of species.
What "actual results"?
It's not the same thing at all. All known phyla (except one) appeared during the Cambrian explosion. How many new phyla were produced by the radiations you mention?This is just called radiation. It's the same thing observed after any other extinction event throughout time.
According to ToE, disparity can't just magically appear overnight - we're talking different body plans and novel organs (eg, eyes) here, not trivia like different size beaks in finches. Such disparity can only happen very slolwly, after countless generations of diversification.Because niches aren't filled at the time of the Cambrian or aren't filled after any other extinction event, you get disparity followed by diversity.
Your argument is illogical. What makes such transplants possible are the actual genetic similarities between humans and pigs ... not the explanation for why such genetic similarities exist.Like the study of why pigs can be used for organ transplants with humans, xenotransplantation, which reveals the common ancestry between the two, thus allowing the practice to work.
The disparity evident in the Cambrian explosion includes entirely new phyla ... you know, stuff like novel body plans and new organs, such as eyes.Show me where that is said, or your just quoting a strawman.
It's millions and millions of years. The world was going through changes and many niches didn't exist... also eyes aren't particularly good at leaving remains unless it's in a skull socket or shell cup.The disparity evident in the Cambrian explosion includes entirely new phyla ... you know, stuff like novel body plans and new organs, such as eyes.
Which part of ToE says such radical changes can happen overnight?
How did the lense of an eye evolve?Those are not scientific theories. Scientific theories require confirming evidence.
Your argument is illogical. What makes such transplants possible are the actual genetic similarities between humans and pigs ... not the explanation for why such genetic similarities exist.
The transplants will work regardless of any such explanations ... attribute the genetic similarities to the activity of pixies, if you like, and the transplants will still work.
The disparity evident in the Cambrian explosion includes entirely new phyla ... you know, stuff like novel body plans and new organs, such as eyes.
Which part of ToE says such radical changes can happen overnight?
It's not the same thing at all. All known phyla (except one) appeared during the Cambrian explosion. How many new phyla were produced by the radiations you mention?
There is a massive difference between the former and latter events.
According to ToE, disparity can't just magically appear overnight - we're talking different body plans and novel organs (eg, eyes) here, not trivia like different size beaks in finches. Such disparity can only happen very slolwly, after countless generations of diversification.
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?