Darwin's most vexing problem

[Hockeycowboy]

You like to pretend that it happened overnight. It did not.

The evidence is a revelation of, not just one species, but 1,000’s of them spread out over 9-20 m.y., but each one suddenly appearing w/o any obvious ancestral linkage to the Ediacaran organisms.
What does “sudden appearance” mean to you?

You like to pretend that there were no precursors. This is false.

That is a stawman, a misrepresentation of what I said.
Of course, you’ll accept any life as a precursor to the Cambrian biota.
But what I wrote, for all to see, is that there are no obvious precursors.

You like to pretend that we are unable to know anything about "before" that.

I didn’t say that at all. In fact, the fossil record of that time reveals extremely detailed data of even soft-bodied organisms.

You like to pretend that we can't use DNA to find out. That is false.

We’re talking about fossils.
Go ahead and extract some DNA from a fossil of a long-extinct species. Then show everyone how you did it.

 

[rational experiences]

Human study medical review life sacrificed dying by radiation fallout told it's teaching.

Natural gas radiating burning as light above us was voided did not fall in.

Human science earth converting consuming mass caused it to fall in.

O earth gases cannot void will fall in. Meaning earths body collapses like fall out above us.

By burning out evolution as it's status cooling.

Stone cooled in space.
Burning gases cooled in space.

Science preaching evolution is cooling.

Science hence said snap freeze killed off giant life.

Water supported that giant life existing as large bones and large cells. No humans.

Preached science said ice by mass pressure changes allowed small celled life to exist. Scientific preaching to self.

Is not a human owning any statement of a thesis to preach. As a human claiming I am a God who invented you.

About I know how and why.

Yet group conditions allow support you to argue just as a human how and why.

Because of human egotism I know everything.

So your claim is I am the creator in person telling you all how I did it.

Yet you are just a human.

No human no stories no thesis.

Are we real?

No.

Reason first two humans as humans by identified science reason died decomposed no longer exist. Memory human.

Sex a chosen act to birth a human baby the reason any human is living.

Do we own a conscious brain mind problem?

Yes.

We taught ourselves we did and said it was human egotism.

In the Jesus event time outlawed Alchemy which is human chosen science beginnings.

Common sense. Humans realised we expressed our own self destructive reasoning to be only our parents.....a long time deceased. Our only first history is a human.

Possessed by their death.

I can claim the eternal held spirit first left moved into atmosphere de manifested was human instantly. Yet it is a story. I know it is only a story.

Science can take a cell and play with it and say yes instant type of body baby formed replaced by its owned two parent history.

That status science being honest.

If science said my creation human began in big bang blast he would destroy me with that thesis.

You don't know what you say is an intelligence human claim. You are not thinking about what you mean. So we stated science is mean.

Human pre history already proved science is a human egotists status as a human why science was outlawed by human laws.

When are you going to learn your owned human lesson?

We know we have and express a human ego problem as a human and said the practice science was false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence is a revelation of, not just one species, but 1,000’s of them spread out over 9-20 m.y., but each one suddenly appearing w/o any obvious ancestral linkage to the Ediacaran organisms.

False. Please, inform yourself

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos

The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air.

What does “sudden appearance” mean to you?

I already told you.
I think a better question is: what does it mean to YOU -AND, does that match what it means to the actual scientists who study this stuff? Because if it doesn't, then you are misrepresenting the science. And surely you don't mean to do that, right? ...right?

That is a stawman, a misrepresentation of what I said.

No. You literally just said it again in the previous quote:

but each one suddenly appearing w/o any obvious ancestral linkage to the Ediacaran organisms

How is it a strawman then? I'm just repeating what you have said....................

Of course, you’ll accept any life as a precursor to the Cambrian biota.

No.

But what I wrote, for all to see, is that there are no obvious precursors.

And you're wrong about that.

We’re talking about fossils.

The science doesn't just deal in fossils. It also deals in DNA - which is much better evidence then fossils, btw. To the point that if we didn't have a SINGLE fossil, DNA alone would still be MORE then enough to make the case for evolution. DNA is slam-dunk evidence. Much better evidence then any fossil you can think of. Even tiktaalik. The fossil record, off course, is also good evidence completely in support of the theory. DNA is just even better evidence.

So I wonder why you wish to not consider DNA evidence and instead only want to focus on the fossil record.

Go ahead and extract some DNA from a fossil of a long-extinct species. Then show everyone how you did it.

I already explained to you why that isn't necessary.
Curiously, you didn't respond to that part.
Nor did you respond to my post about punctuated equilibrium and how it is KNOWN and easily testable how evolution can "accelerate" and "slow down" depending on environmental (in)stability.

Read the article I linked. It in fact mentions the fact that the cambrian explosion is by far not the only period where such "bursts" of evolutionary change is seen. We see it pretty much after every mass-extinction. The reason why is obvious, if you read (and comprehended) my post about punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@TagliatelliMonster , you could easily refute me in this debate over whether there are OBVIOUS (That’s the word you ignored, the straw man) precursors to the Cambrian animals, by showing some pictures of their obvious ancestors, that look like them.... some that favor the 3-segmented trilobites, or the anomalocaris, or any other unique species that originated in the Cambrian.

That’s one reason Gould and Eldridge formulated their Punctuated Equilibrium model. They saw that phylogenetic gradualism lacked support from the fossil record.

But the Lägerstatten found in many of the Cambrian fossil beds have kept a fantastic record of even soft-bodied animals! So you cant use “the fossil record is incomplete “ as an excuse.

And I agree, DNA is excellent evidence for revealing relationships within the Family (Order?) taxon of any organism. But that is where it ends....
Because no mechanism of evolution has ever been observed, or proven, to create de novo genes; it can only alter, or break, the genes that already exist within the organisms. The LTEE is supporting this as fact. So did the Drosophila experiments. (And these species are / were subjected to artificial / controlled evolution! Nature presents much less favorable conditions! )


But I’d still like to see the DNA you’ve extracted from fossils.

Hey, what is Gerd Müller’s “The Explanatory Deficits of the MS” about?
You tell me that what we currently know, explains everything. Apparently to quite a few, it doesn’t.

Since you have an affinity to either ignore or twist my words, don’t bother to try to answer these questions...I’m through. For now.

It seems the OP has abandoned this thread, too. Probably wanted to make a point, and forego the arguing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster , you could easily refute me in this debate over whether there are OBVIOUS (That’s the word you ignored, the straw man) precursors to the Cambrian animals, by showing some pictures of their obvious ancestors, that look like them.... some that favor the 3-segmented trilobites, or the anomalocaris, or any other unique species that originated in the Cambrian.

Your nonsense has already been refuted by a simple explanation of what punctuated equilibrium is all about. Your entire "case" rests on this word "sudden" you keep using, in reference of a process that took millions of years to unfold.

I did not ignore that word. I just think it's meaningless because that would be a subjective judgement call by which you can just keep moving the goalpost.

The fact of the matter is that no pre-cambrian fossil is EVER going to be "obvious" in that sense, especially not to you, for several reasons. The first being that you simply are not qualified to assess any of these things - you had no formal training, you have no credentials and you wouldn't even know what to look for.


For example, Tiktaalik is an obvious transitional fossil between earth walking tetrapods and sea dwilling fish-like organisms. It's sometimes referred to as "fish-apod" for that reason.
Yet, I bet a gazillion dollars that you would not consider it "obvious". And the reason is the one mentioned above: you wouldn't even know what you are looking at.

So excuse me while I refuse to go down that rabbit hole with you.

That’s one reason Gould and Eldridge formulated their Punctuated Equilibrium model. They saw that phylogenetic gradualism lacked support from the fossil record.

Bullocks. Punctuated Equilibrium is gradual. Or did you think that it means that some member of species Y gave birth to a member of species X?
With this statement, you have exposed that you didn't comprehend the explanation I gave you about what PE actually is all about.

But the Lägerstatten found in many of the Cambrian fossil beds have kept a fantastic record of even soft-bodied animals! So you cant use “the fossil record is incomplete “ as an excuse.

It's not an excuse. The fossil record is factually extremely "incomplete" (if 'complete' means having a fossil of every major transition). The VAST majority (like +99%) of all species that EVER lived, did not leave any fossils behind.

And I agree, DNA is excellent evidence for revealing relationships within the Family (Order?) taxon of any organism. But that is where it ends....

And you say this, why exactly?
I suggest that this "limit" you claim is completely arbitrary.

Here's the evidence that you are utterly wrong:

Tree of life SVG - Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

That is a phylogenetic tree. It was not drawn by some person. It was automatically generated. The input of this automatic process was fully sequenced genomes.

There is no "limit within the family / order / what-have-you".
If that were the case, it wouldn't be a single branching tree. In that case, it would result in several trees - one for each "family / order / what-have-you".

So, no.

Because no mechanism of evolution has ever been observed, or proven, to create de novo genes;

False.
Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)

it can only alter, or break, the genes that already exist within the organisms.

False. See previous link.

The LTEE is supporting this as fact. So did the Drosophila experiments. (And these species are / were subjected to artificial / controlled evolution! Nature presents much less favorable conditions! )

False. See link.

But I’d still like to see the DNA you’ve extracted from fossils.

See the link of the phylogenetic tree. See also the post where I already responded to this strawman.

Hey, what is Gerd Müller’s “The Explanatory Deficits of the MS” about?
You tell me that what we currently know, explains everything. Apparently to quite a few, it doesn’t.

No idea what you are talking about or how it's relevant to the topic.

Since you have an affinity to either ignore or twist my words, don’t bother to try to answer these questions...

Says the guy who ignores explanations and responses given, like the silly statement of "extracting genes from 500 million year old fossil" to which I already responded. Twice.

It seems the OP has abandoned this thread, too. Probably wanted to make a point, and forego the arguing.

His point is just rehash number-i-lost-count of creationist PRATTs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The first being that you simply are not qualified to assess any of these things - you had no formal training, you have no credentials and you wouldn't even know what to look for.

^^Personal attack falacy^^

I’ve known that you have this proclivity to state supposition as fact (a decidedly non-scientific stance)....
Now, you’ve just shown it to everyone.
(You know neither me, nor my qualifications and degrees.)

Goodbye

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

^^Personal attack falacy^^

That's not a personal attack.

Suppose I would argue against string theory and then demand of someone to "show me the math to prove me wrong". What good would that do? I'm not a theoretical physicist or a math wizard.

They could show me the actual math or total nonsense math, and I wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.
Why? Because I don't have the required knowledge to understand it, recognize it, analyze it.

So for anyone to go through the trouble to show me said math, and even explain it step by step, I still wouldn't understand it.

I'm not qualified. I had no formal training. I have no credentials.
I wouldn't be able to recognize it if it came up wearing a T-shirt "I'm string theory" and hit me upside the head with a baseball bat.

This is not a "personal attack".
It's simply a fact.

(You know neither me, nor my qualifications and degrees.)

You expect me to believe that you are a biologist, evolutionary biologist, molecular biologist, geneticist, paleontologist, or anything else in some related field? Please...

The stuff you say, exposes that you don't have a clue about the subject matter.

You are not a geneticist - if you were you would understand what phylogenetics is all about and you wouldn't make ignorant statements like "how do you extract dna from 500 million year old fossils".

If you were a biologist or evolutionary biologist, you wouldn't need to have it explained to you what punctuated equilibrium is all about.


And to top it off, if you actually knew what you were talking about and had an actual case, you wouldn't ignore my entire post and every point made while only quoting a single sentence and use that to falsely argue it is an ad hominim while it really isn't.

This is again you trying to run away from the actual arguments.

Pathetic.

So yes, goodbye.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You expect me to believe that you are a biologist, evolutionary biologist, molecular biologist, geneticist, paleontologist, or anything else in some related field? Please...

The stuff you say, exposes that you don't have a clue about the subject matter.

I suspect you’d say the same about Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Douglas Axe, Dr. Scott Minnich, etc., etc.

We all agree the same.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I suspect you’d say the same about Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Douglas Axe, Dr. Scott Minnich, etc., etc.

We all agree the same.

Every single one of those are exposed liars from the discovery institute who's only argument against evolution is religious in nature.

Cite me a single actual scientific paper of them that argues against evolution in a proper scientific way.
You can't. Because such papers don't exist.

Every single one of their "papers" are published in their own private apologetic religious circles.

And they had their a$$es handed to them at the Dover trial, where the "discovery institute" folks were exposed as the liars that they are.



Having said that, you are changing the topic and once again running away from the actual points.
You made an accusation of me engaging in a personal attack. I explained how that wasn't the case at all.
Instead of taking back your false accusation and actually responding to the points made, you once again move the topic and now start rambling about a bunch of exposed liars and frauds.


Good job. Your cdesign proponentsists heroes would be proud of you.

 

[McBell]

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Grief! Somehow I missed this....

Because I have given up on educating you.

You've “given up”?
Please, Heyo.... we’ve rarely had any dialogue on this subject.

Friendly banter, is fine. But represent the facts correctly....we have had very few discussions.

You know, when people resort to belittling comments, it can be revealing: many times the reason is because their argument isn’t very secure.

Good night, my cousin.

 

[Heyo]

You've “given up”?
Please, Heyo.... we’ve rarely had any dialogue on this subject.

I've offered you (and other members) a free 101 into the Theory of Evolution (here) but you (and everybody else but Deeje) declined. So it is not that I'm not open to communication.
And if you are not open to have your misconceptions corrected, the only thing I can do is barring you from disseminating those misconceptions unopposed. And when I think ridicule (of the idea, not of the person) is fit for opposition, I'll use it.

Friendly banter, is fine. But represent the facts correctly....we have had very few discussions.

We didn't need to to form my opinion. I've watched a lot of debates you had with others. And no matter how many facts were presented to you, it didn't have any effect on you. Like my posting of the video. You asked for a natural explanation for the development of the flagellum, I posted one. You answered that with "you're optimistic if you think facts can sway my opinion". (OK, that is conjecture, you answered it with an "Optimistic" frub. Care to explain?)

You know, when people resort to belittling comments, it can be revealing: many times the reason is because their argument isn’t very secure.

And other times it is pure frustration that there is no rational way to play chess with a pigeon.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And no matter how many facts were presented to you, it didn't have any effect on you. Like my posting of the video. You asked for a natural explanation for the development of the flagellum, I posted one. You answered that with "you're optimistic if you think facts can sway my opinion". (OK, that is conjecture, you answered it with an "Optimistic" frub. Care to explain?)

I’d seen the video before. It provides no evidential support explaining the steps in the BF evolving. Only assumption. You can’t grasp that though, can you? mic I’m not mistaken the vid mentions the T3SS, but that has been shown to have come after the BF.... it is not a precursor. (I have no problem with molecular machinery losing function....that might have been what occurred.)

That which is supported by all evidence and contradicted by none, and which makes testable predictions that can be verified and when verified, check out.

Oh yeah? “Junk” DNA has been verified and it has checked out as junk? Not quite.

Again, this is the (intellectually honest) language of science.

Then you should use it....instead of stating everything as fact. I mean, to be intellectually honest.

Tagliatelli , you said that I don’t reply to everything you post; I just don’t have the time.

You also said that those biologists I mentioned were “exposed as liars.” In the Kitzmiller trial.

If that were truly the case, Lehigh University would have fired Dr. Behe.

You told me once that you have no detailed knowledge of string theory and the math supporting it. Therefore, anything you might say on the subject would have no bearing.
I agree, somewhat.

So why do you tout Judge Jones’ decision, as if it really means anything?? His interest, actually his job, was merely to maintain the “establishment “ clause of the First Amendment, I.e., keep anything that might be construed as religious, separate from the State.... nothing else.

 

[Heyo]

I’d seen the video before. It provides no evidential support explaining the steps in the BF evolving. Only assumption. You can’t grasp that though, can you? mic I’m not mistaken the vid mentions the T3SS, but that has been shown to have come after the BF.... it is not a precursor. (I have no problem with molecular machinery losing function....that might have been what occurred.)

You always decry IC as evidence for design by intelligence......but please, how *could* the bacterial flagellum evolve? What pathways *could have been* taken to gradually build this nano machine? Or *could* it emerge suddenly?

That was the question and the answer was adequate. You asked for a possible way, the video provides one. Even if it is only speculation, it gives an answer to your question.
Do we agree on that?

Aside from the fallacy in this case, I think we have to talk about epistemology. If you don't want to channel Ken Ham, we'll have to agree upon what constitutes evidence, otherwise I can bring as much as I want, you'll simply refuse to see it.
So, what is your threshold for admissible evidence? (And make sure that you can still defend your beliefs with the same threshold.)

You also said that those biologists I mentioned were “exposed as liars.” In the Kitzmiller trial.

If that were truly the case, Lehigh University would have fired Dr. Behe.

You don't know how tenure works, do you? Lehigh University has distanced itself from Mr. Behe's positions but they can't legally fire him.

So why do you tout Judge Jones’ decision, as if it really means anything?? His interest, actually his job, was merely to maintain the “establishment “ clause of the First Amendment, I.e., keep anything that might be construed as religious, separate from the State.... nothing else.

And do we agree he did just that?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That was the question and the answer was adequate. You asked for a possible way, the video provides one. Even if it is only speculation, it gives an answer to your question.
Do we agree on that?

Is speculation, really an answer?

You willingly accept speculation as evidence for evolution, but won’t accept it as evidence for ID.

See a problem there?

Aside from the fallacy in this case, I think we have to talk about epistemology. If you don't want to channel Ken Ham, we'll have to agree upon what constitutes evidence, otherwise I can bring as much as I want, you'll simply refuse to see it.

Oh please...no Ken Ham!
Lol.

I don’t refuse to look at anything (except immoral stuff.)
But I don’t put too much stock in weak evidence that allows for much conjecture, and assumptive interpretation.... that type of evidence is usually thrown out in court.

You don't know how tenure works, do you? Lehigh University has distanced itself from Mr. Behe's positions but they can't legally fire him.

Yes, he’s tenured. And yes, I know what it means. Do you?

Tenure doesn’t guarantee a job:
“Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.”
—The Truth About Tenure in Higher Education | Diversity Jobs and Employment


One reason for firing tenured faculty is "demonstrated incompetence or dishonesty in teaching or research…"

Yet he’s still got his job.

And do we agree he did just that?

Do I agree that he felt he was....

But Judge J. Jones also wrote this in his decision:
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”
So, with Judge Jones’ intimation here, he raised a fascinating question..... are the biological sciences interested in what is truth, or simply in maintaining the status quo?

 

[Heyo]

Is speculation, really an answer?

If the question was to speculate, yes.
Behe's (and your) claim is that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex (without any evidence). It has been shown that parts of the flagellum have a function - which is enough to falsify the claim.
It has also been shown that there is a (speculative) way the flagellum could have evolved successively and in each iteration has some kind of function. That is more than enough to sink the flagship of evidence for ID.

You willingly accept speculation as evidence for evolution, but won’t accept it as evidence for ID.

See a problem there?

You willingly accept speculation as evidence for ID, but won’t accept it as evidence for evolution.

See a problem there?

(And try to apply your threshold for acceptable evidence you have for evolution to your religious beliefs and you'd be an atheist in no time.)

Oh please...no Ken Ham!
Lol.

He at least is honest about not accepting anything to change his mind. You say you would but you don't act that way ...

I don’t refuse to look at anything (except immoral stuff.)
But I don’t put too much stock in weak evidence that allows for much conjecture, and assumptive interpretation.... that type of evidence is usually thrown out in court.

... as evidenced by this comment. You try to avoid to commit to any standard that could prove you wrong.

Yes, he’s tenured. And yes, I know what it means. Do you?

Tenure doesn’t guarantee a job:
“Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.”
—The Truth About Tenure in Higher Education | Diversity Jobs and Employment


One reason for firing tenured faculty is "demonstrated incompetence or dishonesty in teaching or research…"

Yet he’s still got his job.

Because he didn't fail in his job. (and possibly because Lehigh fears the repercussions from firing such a high profile faculty member).

Do I agree that he felt he was....

But Judge J. Jones also wrote this in his decision:
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”
So, with Judge Jones’ intimation here, he raised a fascinating question..... are the biological sciences interested in what is truth, or simply in maintaining the status quo?

Have you ever agreed to anything? I'm trying to find a common basis here from which we can proceed.
Can we agree that 2 + 2 = 4?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I’d seen the video before. It provides no evidential support explaining the steps in the BF evolving. Only assumption. You can’t grasp that though, can you? mic I’m not mistaken the vid mentions the T3SS, but that has been shown to have come after the BF.... it is not a precursor. (I have no problem with molecular machinery losing function....that might have been what occurred.)

Here's the thing though.
First, knowing the exact big-scale genetic pathways that were taken through evolution to evolve certain complex structures, is likely not even possible.

The point is, that if plausible pathways exist, then it is demonstrated that it is possible. Which completely undermines the "need" for all the baggage the cdesign proponentsists try to trojan horse into it.
Because then there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" as they define it.

And as a result, their entire argument falls apart.

Oh yeah? “Junk” DNA has been verified and it has checked out as junk? Not quite.

I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more specific.

Then you should use it....instead of stating everything as fact. I mean, to be intellectually honest.

Tagliatelli , you said that I don’t reply to everything you post; I just don’t have the time.

You also said that those biologists I mentioned were “exposed as liars.” In the Kitzmiller trial.

If that were truly the case, Lehigh University would have fired Dr. Behe.

Behe has tenure.

You told me once that you have no detailed knowledge of string theory and the math supporting it. Therefore, anything you might say on the subject would have no bearing.
I agree, somewhat.

So why do you tout Judge Jones’ decision, as if it really means anything?? His interest, actually his job, was merely to maintain the “establishment “ clause of the First Amendment, I.e., keep anything that might be construed as religious, separate from the State.... nothing else.

Indeed.
And what he ruled was the he considered it demonstrated that ID id religion and Evolution is science.



He didn't rule on the validity of either. So your comparison with my comment concerning not understanding string theory, is a false comparison.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Heyo, you seem cool, like Smithville....Later i’ll reply to more of your post that included this comment:

Have you ever agreed to anything? I'm trying to find a common basis here from which we can proceed.
Can we agree that 2 + 2 = 4?

“2 + 2 = 4”? I don’t know, it depends on what plane of existence we’re talking about...

Lol, Lol, Lol. I’m just playin’.

Of course I can agree to that! But that’s math...pretty definitive!

Go ahead, let’s do it, I love discussing evidence, I really do.

Don’t give me a Gish, please. Just present a couple lines of evidence, and we can discuss and reason on them. If you wouldn’t mind, I’d appreciate more substantial evidence than just supposition.

First off, though, you should know exactly how much of the Theory I accept. (I think you’ll find it’s quite a lot.)

Maybe we can start tomorrow? We’ll both leave the Ad Homs, both outright and subtle, alone. Ok?