proving evolution as just a "theory"

[tas8831]

its very relevant if about 99% of all planes have wheels.

Why?

Do planes reproduce?

 

[Uber Genius]

You could find evidence of a mammal in a layer of Cambrian strata.

It's not perfect but would be a start.

You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion) utterly destroying the Neo Darwinian gradualism inference.

Did you mean to call attention to the recalcitrant fact of those data, or their knock down capability? Opps.

 

[tas8831]

There are no obvious scientific implications.

You have no background in science at all, am I right?

You don't think testing a method on knowns has implications for the usefulness of the methods?


Sounds like you are desperate to avoid the inevitable.

Since you have no evidence, they are based on assumptions.

See above.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

Apes and humans are different species and DNA prove it.

Yes, I know.

Nobody has said that apes and humans are the same species.

You do not even seem to understand what it is you are opposing.

 

[tas8831]

You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion) utterly destroying the Neo Darwinian gradualism inference.

How so?

Do you not think 50 million years is along time?


Are you ignoring the Precambiran on purpose?

Oops...

 

[Jimmy D]

How so?

Do you not think 50 million years is along time?


Are you ignoring the Precambiran on purpose?

Oops...

It's called the "EXPLOSION" of course it was quick!

You could find all major phyla arriving

All?

 

[tas8831]

So you are unfamiliar with the findings since the late 1980s and respond with "50 million years seems like a long tme to me."

30-seconds of research is all I ask. Not even one college class. It's so simple.

Think we are way past opps here.

My goodness super plagiarist - thank you for taking time off of your dogged defense of the joke that is the KCA to condescend to all on this forum.

But my goodness, even Wiki is your friend on this matter.

But feel free to tell us all about your amazing post-1980s discoveries on the matter. Can't wait for a nice DI paraphrase.

 

[pitabread]

You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion)

Except all major phyla didn't appear during the Cambrian explosion. There is emergence of phyla both pre and post Cambrian.

Also generally the Cambrian explosion is considered a shorter period than 40-50 million years, although there is admittedly some debate around how much of an 'explosion' it really was due to pre-Cambrian fossils.

 

[tas8831]

Look up "Wiley coyote," while you look up the word "since" as in "since the 1980s" as in, "you are unfamiliar with standard evidence in evolution since the 1980s."

So no explanation as to how the Cambrian 'explosion' contradicts Darwinian gradualism?

Got it.

Next item 1st year college student are taught to rely on real research and are not allowed to use wiki as a source due to the fact that it is crowd sourced and not research based.

Yeah, I know.

Do you teach 1st year college students to plagiarize creationist propagandists? Seems so.

Funny thing - The wiki link has a very nice reference list TO real research.

Note to 1st year college students - Wiki is actually not a bad starting point, for most Wiki entries on non-controversial subjects contain lots of legitimate resources/references.


I note that you added some stuff in an edit:

Given your grasp of the discussion so far I'm dubious of additional complexity but I will spell out why the experts who hold to NeoDarwinian evolution affine the Cambrian explosion to be a potential knockdown argument.

A neo-Darwinian understanding of the mechanism for generating new biological structure generates three specific predictions or empirical expectations concerning the fossil record. Given the operation of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the fossil record should show: (1) the gradual emergence of biological complexity and the existence of numerous transitional forms leading to new phyla-level body plans; (2) small-scale morphological diversity preceding the emergence of large-scale morphological disparity; and (3) a steady increase in the morphological distance between organic forms over time and, consequently, a steady increase in the number of phyla over time.

Man, do I love being right (" Can't wait for a nice DI paraphrase.").

I could only have been more right if I had written "Can't wait for a nice act of creationist plagiarism."



Note to freshman college students - DON'T PLAGIARIZE WHEN DISCUSSING THINGS THAT YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

THOSE ABOVE YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND EDUCATIONAL STATION WILL RECOGNIZE THE CHANGE IN STYLE AND DO A 5-SECOND GOOGLE SEARCH TO DISCOVER YOUR DISHONESTY:


http://www.christianity-science.gr/files/CambrianExplosion-Biology'sBigBang.pdf

A neo-Darwinian understanding of the mechanism for generating new biological
structure generates three specific predictions or empirical expectations concerning the
fossil record. Given the operation of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the fossil record
should show: (1) the gradual emergence of biological complexity and the existence of
numerous transitional forms leading to new phyla-level body plans; (2) small-scale
morphological diversity preceding the emergence of large-scale morphological disparity;
and (3) a steady increase in the morphological distance between organic forms over time
and, consequently, a steady increase in the number of phyla over time.​

WORD. FOR. WORD.

And from a 'Consulting/Adjunct Professor'....

For shame.

You are the 4th creationist that I have caught plagiarizing on this forum in the last couple of months.

Great morals.

What was that projective, condescending quip you wrote to me?

Ah yes - "Given your grasp of the discussion so far I'm dubious of additional complexity but I will spell out why the experts who hold to NeoDarwinian evolution affine the Cambrian explosion to be a potential knockdown argument."


Yet the best you can muster is plagiarism...

Bye.

 

[tas8831]

Except all major phyla didn't appear during the Cambrian explosion. There is emergence of phyla both pre and post Cambrian.

Also generally the Cambrian explosion is considered a shorter period than 40-50 million years, although there is admittedly some debate around how much of an 'explosion' it really was due to pre-Cambrian fossils.

Don't waste your time - just another creationist plagiarist.

And worst of all - he is plagiarizing 3 hack creationists.

 

[BradB]

This is in its entirety another bald and unsupported assertion. How do you know something is required to 'start' the universe let alone know that it required an intelligence of some type, how many universes have you seen being put together & fired up? How can you rule out an infinite Multiverse?

AGAIN science is based on what we observe. We observe that our universe is finite and that tells us it had a beginning from some other source. IF that source was some other universe we must logically assume that it too would be finite because all one universes we have ever observed were finite. How far back to we want to keep going? Say a billion universes ago? At what point would we reach the very first universe and where did it come from? Obviously finite things cannot exist infinitely or else they would not be finite.

Why does the infinite thing that formed our universe require intelligence? Because the universe and life exhibits characteristics that can be termed "specificity." This is a characteristic that we have never observed forming by random unguided processes. In fact scientist often use it as a clue for detecting intelligence. Its just that everyone seems to fall apart when it is pointed out that we observe it in the fabric of life itself.

 

[tas8831]

AGAIN science is based on what we observe.

Do you think it is based on direct observation of specific events?

Because if you do, you are wrong.

One can also observe expected or predicted outcomes of events, or 'collateral damage' so to speak.

 

[Uber Genius]

I can tell that I am going to be particularly tough on my students' false and unsuported claims tomorrow. My fault for taking these discussions outside the faculty club.

 

[BradB]

Do you think it is based on direct observation of specific events?

Because if you do, you are wrong.

One can also observe expected or predicted outcomes of events, or 'collateral damage' so to speak.

Yes I totally get that my friend. However those "predictions" must be anchored in observational facts...e.g. we can predict that if another universe exists it is like all other one universes we have observed. We can't predict it is all illuminated in pink and sound travels faster than light there. If our universe is the product of a multiverse scenario then we must base our predictions of what those other universes might act like based on what we have observed. We have observed that the universe is finite thus if other universes exist they must likewise be predicted to be finite. Otherwise we are just talking sci-fi nonsense.

So then based upon observation our universe has to have some ultimate infinite source "predicted" from the observation that finite things do not randomly form from nothing...and therefore if ever there were a time when nothing existed then nothing would still exist. So logic dictates that something else infinite in nature must exist. We observe that the characteristic of specificity only comes from intelligent sources and never once has been observed forming from random unguided processes. We also observe that the arrangement and makeup of our universe, solar system, laws of physics, and life itself all consist of the characteristic of specificity. Thus we can "predict" that the infinite source of the universe must also posses intelligence.

You tell me...what term in the English language is defined as an infinite, intelligent, creator of the universe and all life? Gee I brought us all the way there only using observation and never cracking a single Bible.

 

[bhsmte]

I can tell that I am going to be particularly tough on my students' false and unsuported claims tomorrow. My fault for taking these discussions outside the faculty club.

Go ahead, this will be entertaining.

 

[Larniavc]

You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion) utterly destroying the Neo Darwinian gradualism inference.

Did you mean to call attention to the recalcitrant fact of those data, or their knock down capability? Opps.

How does that explain how that destroys neo Darwinism?

 

[BradB]

I can tell that I am going to be particularly tough on my students' false and unsuported claims tomorrow. My fault for taking these discussions outside the faculty club.

Check out 1 Corinthians 8:1-2, and 1 Corinthians 13:2 friend.

 

[rjs330]

Blah blah blah, deny deny deny.

Lol it's an obvious tactic to call deny deny deny when you don't have anything substantial.

 

[rjs330]

LOL. He said that it's an applied science. Do you know what that means?

I guess not.

 

[HitchSlap]

Lol it's an obvious tactic to call deny deny deny when you don't have anything substantial.

Not sure why you would call Mt. Everest sized mountains of evidence as not substantial, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

AGAIN science is based on what we observe. We observe that our universe is finite and that tells us it had a beginning from some other source. IF that source was some other universe we must logically assume that it too would be finite because all one universes we have ever observed were finite. How far back to we want to keep going? Say a billion universes ago? At what point would we reach the very first universe and where did it come from? Obviously finite things cannot exist infinitely or else they would not be finite.

Why does the infinite thing that formed our universe require intelligence? Because the universe and life exhibits characteristics that can be termed "specificity." This is a characteristic that we have never observed forming by random unguided processes. In fact scientist often use it as a clue for detecting intelligence. Its just that everyone seems to fall apart when it is pointed out that we observe it in the fabric of life itself.

-_-

really? You do understand that Time is an intrinsic property of this universe, right? Time started when this Universe started, therefore the entire concept of 'Before' the big bang is a non-sensical one. To even talk about 'before' this universe is to broadcast your complete ignorance of our fundamental understanding of the cosmology that underpins it.

To put this into a context you might understand, answer me this quandary: What's north of the North Pole?

Your quips on 'Intelligence' and 'Specificity' lack any and all underpinnings. it's just another helping of that typically incredulous "look at the Trees" special pleading so often paraded by the fundamentally religious without any concrete understanding of the universe around them. Come back when you have some evidence.