Sapiens
Polymathematician
You're halfway there. Now ... what happens to the "bad" ones?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Are you rescinding your claim here, or moving the goal posts?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Bad chance and if it affects fitness and survival then it won't pass to the next generation.
Just stating the facts, cousin.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Your "fact" is contradicted by the evidence.
So they have been selected into two groups, good ones and bad ones and the good ones will "pass it to the next generation"?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you kidding me? Try again when you actually understand the subject. The Cambrian explosion, an even that took millions of years, fits perfectly into the paradigm. Since hard body parts did not evolve until the Cambrian fossils before the would be very rare. Guess what? They are. The earliest fossils that we observe would be simple and basal, that is what we see.
Meanwhile creationists have no paradigm, they have no explanation. At least I have never seen one. Meanwhile you can read this about small shelly fauna. Some predate the Cambrian, there is no hard line that defines the Cambrian any longer. That too is predicted by the theory of evolution, that supposed sudden appearances would be more and more "fuzzy" as we look more and more fossils are found.
Most creationists work under knowledge of the fossil record that is fifty years old or more. Perhaps it would be wise to update what you know.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And yet we have many examples of positive mutations that show no sign of doing so. Why make ridiculous unsupported claims that only prove that one's knowledge of selection is incorrect. If a mutation is positive it will be selected for. Now matter what model that one uses.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No it is not. First you must define "multi-cellular life". Depending upon one's definition stromatolite could be called "multi-cellular life". Once again, there was plenty of multi-cellular life in the Ediacaran. There was merely no life with hard body parts.
Please! Don't tell me....show me!Your "fact" is contradicted by the evidence.
From Wikipedia:
"....the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor"
Of course, your 'brotherhood' couldn't ignore the evidence, so they inserted the word "seemingly", to somehow try and dilute the facts. Just like the misleading phrase, "the appearance of design." It is design, and the fauna do show up abruptly. As would be expected for a creation event.
Colonies don't count. I know you'd like it to.
Reminds me of this misleading title:
Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The Canadian Precambrian Shield is the evidence. It's full of precursors, as I already said. You can see them with your very own eyes. I can probably provide you some, if you'd like.
I don't know who this "brotherhood" is that you speak of or what "seemingly" you are talking about.
It has the appearance of design until someone can demonstrate that it was designed and that some Designer exists.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
First of all......why? Are you open to the possibility that your claims about the Cambrian and the fossil record are wrong? Or is this going to be yet another question that you ignore?
Second.....
Within the last few decades, a plethora of pre-Cambrian fossils have been discovered. Some examples include organisms in the genus Rangea, who represent a precursor to the Middle Cambrian Thaumaptilon, with members of Fasciculus being intermediate between the two (Dzij 2002). Others include benthic coelenterate medusoids that have impressions of tentacles (Gehling 1991), linking them to mollusks. There are also pre-Cambrian organisms that resemble primitive sea anemones (Gehling 1988).
This and other evidence has led even previous skeptics of Ediacaran to Cambrian evolution to change their minds. Clowes (2004) describes the situation "For some years a number of authors (e.g. Seilacher 1984, McMenamin 1986) have argued that the Ediacarans were unrelated to any living group of organisms…However, this view has always encountered opposition and now appears to have lost much of its support."
Even some of the remaining skeptics are conceding that at least some of the Ediacaran fauna are related to Cambrian organisms. Most now (Seilacher 1992; Buss and Seilacher 1994) concedes the existence of cnidarian coelenterates known as the Psammocorallia. This group may have included all four classes of modern cnidarians (Morris 1993).
Annelids are also known from pre-Cambrian strata (Glaessner 1976) as well as echiurid worms (Glaessner 1979). Almost half of all modern phyla are worms, so it is certain that at least some modern phyla appeared in pre-Cambrian eras.
Also, some early Cambrian fossils show characteristics of more than one phylum, which makes their classification difficult. But this is exactly what we would expect under the evolutionary paradigm. Cambrian lobopods represent transitional morphologies between several living phyla. The oldest lobopod known from early Cambrian strata is the Xenusion, which shows commonalities to both palaeoscolecid worms and to living onychophorans and tardigrads (Dzik 1989). Other lobopods show features of primitive arthropods (Dzik 1993; Chen 1994). The discovery of the lobopod Opabinia with its lobopod limbs provides evidence of a lobopod to arthropod transition (Budd 1996), which was further bolstered by the discovery of a lobopod with gills (Budd 1993).
There are many more examples of pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fauna and subsequent evolutionary links. But I think at this point, it has been clearly and definitively shown that your arguments and assertions are simply false. These data show that there is strong evidence of evolutionary development and transition in the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian strata.
References available upon request.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You put the wrong words in bold there. The key word is "seemingly". As I said your knowledge is fifty years out of date at least. Did you not read the articles that I linked? Once again the article on small shelly fauna:
Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia
"The small shelly fauna, small shelly fossils (SSF), or early skeletal fossils (ESF)[1] are mineralized fossils, many only a few millimetres long, with a nearly continuous record from the latest stages of the Ediacaran to the end of the Early Cambrian Period. They are very diverse, and there is no formal definition of "small shelly fauna" or "small shelly fossils". Almost all are from earlier rocks than more familiar fossils such as trilobites. Since most SSFs were preserved by being covered quickly with phosphate and this method of preservation is mainly limited to the Late Ediacaran and Early Cambrian periods, the animals that made them may actually have arisen earlier and persisted after this time span."
Please note that the precursors to trilobites may be there, but since the fossils are not well preserved they would simply be unidentifiable.
And a general article on the biota of the Ediacaran:
Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would tend to agree. But since you have not been able to define the terms that you want to use I have to start somewhere.
And how was that misleading at all? Multi-cellular colonies would be a clear precursor to multi-cellular life. Once again, there is only evidence for the theory of evolution. Let me help you with the concept of scientific evidence.
Let me give you a few primers on the topic:
Scientific evidence: what is it and how can we trust it?
And another article:
How Science Works | What is Scientific Evidence? | The Scientific Parent
One more:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_06
And the Wikipedia entry on it. One that is rather useful:
"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."
What they all have in common is that to have scientific evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis or theory. I have yet to see a testable creationist hypothesis, so I have yet to see any scientific evidence. And by he way, "testable" does not mean writing an ad hoc explanation that explains observations after the fact. To be testable an idea must be falsifiable. That means that there must be a reasonable test that would show the hypothesis or theory to be wrong. Darwin came up with a few and his theory has been tested and confirmed countless times. How would we test your creationist views? What reasonable test would show it to be wrong? If you can't answer this question you have no evidence.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
How does the process you describe differ from classic Darwinian Natural Selection?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
The point is how it worked first, regardless of how it was selected, assume that you
represent the natural selection and your job is to select the working televisions and to disregard
the bad ones, we'll assume that all parts needed for the television was ready by chance, transistors, capacitors, diodes, ICs, screens, boards, wires, power supply ...etc, and then all
parts have to be connected by randomness, no plans and no design.
Why to think that selection is the magical solution for how television was made?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
The point is how it worked first, regardless of selection.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is a rather poorly written post. Natural selection is an observed event. I can tell you what natural selection does. It is all but a tautology. As you said no one denies natural selection. Those that are best suited to survive a particular environment will be the most likely to pass on their genes. That is all that there is to it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What is to understand?
Here is an oversimplified example. Say that there is an organism that eats food off of a tree that is three to five feet tall. When born the organism, like horses, deer, etc. can stand at birth. This animal has a neck that does not bend. It can only eat what is direction in front of it. Animals that are born that are less than three feet tall will not be able to eat and will die. If the animal keeps growing and gets taller than five feet it will die. We already have simple selection for height. Now evolution takes into account that there is both natural selection and variation in the real world. So back to our make believe organism. Let's say that something happens to the tree it eats and it changes the height that it produces food at. It begins to make food at higher and higher levels. It slowly changes from producing food from 3 to 5 feet above the ground to 4 to 6 feet above the ground. Luckily our pretend species has variation too. Some of its offspring will be able to eat at higher levels when born. They will continue to survive. And those that grow a bit taller will be able to survive and pass on their genes.
Variation along with natural selection are the keys to understanding evolution. If someone focuses on only one then only poor arguments against evolution will be given.
- Status