For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Shemjaza]

Thank you.

I don't understand your response.

Your inconsistent and dismissive attitude to evidence is hypocritical and dishonest.

An hypothesis that can't be tested is worthless as science, so is it no fair to call it pseudoscience?

Genetic analysis and models are tests.

Try the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis

How have you established this?

It's not yet an established enough science to be classified as a theory, but it is a set of hypothesis with considerable work and evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would do. Prove it and ya got a Nobel.

The Antichrist will do that during the Tribulation.

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Re 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Species diversity is defined as being the number of species present in an ecosystem. Disparity, on the other hand, is how morphologically different they are from each other. For example, an ecosystem with one species of grass, one rabbit, and a hawk would have very low diversity, but very high disparity.

In contrast, some ecosystems have a huge amount of diversity, but when you compare the species together, you might find that all the primary producers are very similar types of grass or tree, and all the primary consumers are either deer or very similar to deer. Then, some of the top predators might be eagles and hawks, which are somewhat similar to one another. In this case, the species disparity is lower but the diversity is higher." ("What is species disparity?", socratic.org)

Species diversity vs. morphological disparity in the light of evolutionary developmental biology - PubMed

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.

Pseudoscience is stuff like Darwinists concocting a hypothesis about how this or that evolved without putting their hypothesis to the test. That happened a lot in evolution "science" ... why bother with the scientific method when you can invent fairy tales and pass them off as science?

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Dr. Colin Patterson)

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
(Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time")

Please tell me how the lense of the eye might have evolved, and then tell me how you test your hypothesis.

Try the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis

And not a single one of these comments was addressed to you, and your nonsense spiel is getting bloody old.

 

[Buzzard3]

Your inconsistent and dismissive attitude to evidence is hypocritical and dishonest.

Thank you.

 

[Buzzard3]

That would do. Prove it and ya got a Nobel.

Don't I already have a Nobel?

 

[Buzzard3]

And not a single one of these comments was addressed to you, and your nonsense spiel is getting bloody old.

I'm truly sorry.

 

[SLP]

The late, great paleontologist,S.J. Gould, believed the Cambrian explosion took only five million years:

"Although interesting and portentous events have occurred since, from the flowering of dinosaurs to the origin of human consciousness, we do not exaggerate greatly in stating that the subsequent history of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes established during the Cambrian explosion within FIVE MILLION YEARS. Three billion years of unicellularity, followed by FIVE MILLION YEARS of intense creativity and then capped by more than 500 million years of variation on set anatomical themes can scarcely be read as a predictable, inexorable or continuous trend toward progress or increasing complexity." (from "The Evolution of Life on Earth", A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article.
October, 1994. brembs.net)

Quotes from essays, very impressive. Which creationist website did you find that on? Curious - as I know you never read the whole essay, would you like to? Gould was a great author. I saw him give a talk once - on the rise of creationism in America. It was precious when a creationist student attempted to undermine Gould's thesis (that creationism is garbage) by claiming during the Q&A that Gould had misrepresented a passage from Genesis. Gould promptly pulled out the Gideons bible that he had taken from his hotel room, opened to the passage in question, and put the young creationist in his place.

Anyway, back to the Cambrian "explosion" of 5 million years (Threepwood was likely conflating/confusing the Precambian and the Cambrian and who knows what else- he does that a lot). 5 million years is a long time (and we will not even bring up the lengthy Precambrian and such). Hardy archaea can reproduce every 20 minutes or so. Let's say every hour. That is 8,760,000,000 'generations' in 1 million years. If an organism can only reproduce 2 a year, that is 2,000,000 generations - each generation experiencing the changes in their genomes that introduce diversity. Evidence shows that by the Cambrian, of course, we had multicellular eukaryotes and such already.
Given your rich and in-depth understanding of the history of the world and science, tell me how long it should have taken to generate the diversity preserved for us in the Burgess Shale and other sites during and prior tot he Cambrian 'explosion.'
Supported with evidence, of course.

 

[SLP]

I'm not a YEC...

What I don't accept is Darwinian folklore, which says the history of life on earth is the result contiguous process of biolgical evolution, the mechanisms of which are understood and described by the Modern Synthesis.

And why might that be?
Does it conflict with your faith?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Quotes from essays, very impressive. Which creationist website did you find that on? Curious - as I know you never read the whole essay, would you like to? Gould was a great author. I saw him give a talk once - on the rise of creationism in America. It was precious when a creationist student attempted to undermine Gould's thesis (that creationism is garbage) by claiming during the Q&A that Gould had misrepresented a passage from Genesis. Gould promptly pulled out the Gideons bible that he had taken from his hotel room, opened to the passage in question, and put the young creationist in his place.

Anyway, back to the Cambrian "explosion" of 5 million years (Threepwood was likely conflating/confusing the Precambian and the Cambrian and who knows what else- he does that a lot). 5 million years is a long time (and we will not even bring up the lengthy Precambrian and such). Hardy archaea can reproduce every 20 minutes or so. Let's say every hour. That is 8,760,000,000 'generations' in 1 million years. If an organism can only reproduce 2 a year, that is 2,000,000 generations - each generation experiencing the changes in their genomes that introduce diversity. Evidence shows that by the Cambrian, of course, we had multicellular eukaryotes and such already.
Given your rich and in-depth understanding of the history of the world and science, tell me how long it should have taken to generate the diversity preserved for us in the Burgess Shale and other sites during and prior tot he Cambrian 'explosion.'
Supported with evidence, of course.

I never understood why 5-6 million years is TOO short. 6 MILLION years is a massive time frame, and there is also the fact that certain animals would have very short lifespans, meaning that reproduction would be happening incredibly often.

 

[Astrid]

I'm truly sorry.

Better still, try to be better informed.

Well evidenced and logical issues with
any aspect of evolution would be interesting
and welcome.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Better still, try to be better informed.

Well evidenced and logical issues with
any aspect of evolution would be interesting
and welcome.

I have a big feeling they're being sarcastic.

 

[Astrid]

Don't I already have a Nobel?

No. Its called the Pinnocio.

 

[SLP]

That sounds funny coming from an atheist whose only reason for being on a Christian site is to spread the godless gospel of evolution.

And the usual misrepresentation and desire to be shielded from 'the other' in a Christian bubble/echo chamber.
I am here to counter the lies so often used to 'argue' against a scientific theory that so few antagonists seem to understand. I do this in part because I end up having to deal with the inculcated ignorance of students whose church or parents have fed them lies about the subject.

 

[Astrid]

I don't understand your response.

Your inconsistent and dismissive attitude to evidence is hypocritical and dishonest.



Genetic analysis and models are tests.



How have you established this?

It's not yet an established enough science to be classified as a theory, but it is a set of hypothesis with considerable work and evidence.

The impossibility is established exactly the same way
that most things in most religions are established-
by making it up.

 

[SLP]

In other words, no gap is so wide that it can't be jumped in the name of TOE.

No. Not even close. I understand that you do not understand the concepts of science involved, that is a given. But the fact is that creationists (and some biologists) do not even know what macroevolution is and is not, yet feel comfortable - like you are, apparently - discussing/dismissing it.

And the funny thing is, your beliefs require more macroevolution in a shorter time frame than any evolutionist posits. The difference is, your beliefs merely assert that it happened via magic.

 

[Astrid]

No. Not even close. I understand that you do not understand the concepts of science involved, that is a given. But the fact is that creationists (and some biologists) do not even know what macroevolution is and is not, yet feel comfortable - like you are, apparently - discussing/dismissing it.

And the funny thing is, your beliefs require more macroevolution in a shorter time frame than any evolutionist posits. The difference is, your beliefs merely assert that it happened via magic.

There is a lot more difference.
There is not one mummy, fossil, cave painting,
account, or indication of any sort for the transitional
forms of the hyperevolution era.

 

[SLP]

I never understood why 5-6 million years is TOO short. 6 MILLION years is a massive time frame, and there is also the fact that certain animals would have very short lifespans, meaning that reproduction would be happening incredibly often.

I think part of it is rooted in the common creationist belief that any physical change requires many many mutations, and thanks to misrepresentations and poor language used by the likes of Behe and Sanford, that these must occur in some specific order. And there is just not enough time for this to happen - and many seem to think that each individual organism has to acquire these mutations themselves (or so some arguments make it appear).

 

[Astrid]

I think part of it is rooted in the common creationist belief that any physical change requires many many mutations, and thanks to misrepresentations and poor language used by the likes of Behe and Sanford, that these must occur in some specific order. And there is just not enough time for this to happen - and many seem to think that each individual organism has to acquire these mutations themselves (or so some arguments make it appear).

There as are a lot of changes associated with mutstion
causing Downs, and ftm, minor tweaking of endocrine timjmg
gives big morpholohical changes.

 

[Buzzard3]

The difference is, your beliefs merely assert that it happened via magic.

Judging by the stories Darwinists dream up about how this or that evolved, evolution is magic.

 

[ottawak]

Judging by the stories Darwinists dream up about how this or that evolved, evolution is magic.

It only seems like magic until you know how the trick is done.