Just Accidental?

[Guy Threepwood]

So what? In geological terms yes, they appeared suddenly. Not in biological terms. You simply are making a nonsensical claim.

It's actually not even very controversial these days. The Cambrian explosion was identified in Darwin's time, but was put down to an artifact of an incomplete record- it was supposed to be smoothed out over time. But over the years it has become ever more defined, explosive, but it's not just the Cambrian, it's the entire record that has failed to live up to the smooth steady transitions originally predicted.

Hence splinter groups from Darwinism like punctuated equilibrium.

We have a lot of work to do. You need to learn the basics of science first. Are you ready and willing?

where shall we start, Piltdown man? Canals on Mars? Phrenology? Global Cooling?, Steady State?

"[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

Again, not "belief". Acceptance of an obvious fact would be a more accurate statement. The fossil record is literally mountains of evidence that supports only the theory of evolution.

Okay, so we dig back through time, we see many shared traits, similarities, changes over time, some gaps, sudden appearances, also a few regressions and dead ends.. but a general progression towards increased sophistication over time right?

So help me understand, what does this pattern of evidence prove as fact, or even strongly suggest to you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thanks Cowboy, I appreciate that- and likewise!

Yes it's a good point- we often hear 'billions of years' - But not only did life appear later, almost all the major phyla appeared in a geological blink of an eye -'as if with no evolutionary history' as Dawkins put it, during the Cambrian- limiting most of the appearances of the major body plans to <100 million years at best- and probably far shorter.

The first three domains, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucaryota, took billions of years to evolve. They didn't possess hard body parts, and still don't.

Once multicellular life took off, adaptive radiation to fill the available niches occurred relatively rapidly. That's what is meant by the Cambrian explosion. It appears to have occurred over 20-25 million years.

A single cell would not become a human being through accidental changes given a trillion years...

That's a religious belief, and it contradicts the consensus of the qualified experts in the field. Why would a reason and evidence based thinker take the opinion of the religious community and its faith based thinkers over that of the scientists in the latter's area of expertise?

This question is analogous to the one that the creationists here have all steadfastly avoided:

Why would we toss out a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for the available fossil, biological, and biogeographical evidence, includes a mechanism that accounts for the diversity and commonality of all life on earth, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition, for an idea that can do none of that?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The universe did not evolve.

Of course it did. It's evolving now. The galaxy is evolving. The sun is evolving. The earth is evolving. Life is evolving.

Science knows it had a beginning. It has no clue about what was in existence before that. The Bible explains.

The Bible explains nothing. It just tells myths - unsubstantiated claims with no explanatory mechanisms included. This is not an explanation:

When something is as clearly programmed (as instinct is) then that requires a programmer.....simple logic. If there is purpose demonstrated in the design, it indicates planning and planning requires intelligence.....simple logic.

[snip]

Assumption is not fact and just because something "seems" to be correct, doesn't mean it is.

No kidding. You don't see the irony in that pair of juxtaposed comments?

You also returned to the creationist bag of tricks for another semantic sleights of hand. Instinct probably arose naturalistically. It's certainly a possibility.

It is also possibly the result of a supernatural agent. If you define program as meaning something that could only be generated by an intelligent programmer, and then say that that proves that there was an intelligent programmer, you're making a circular argument. Calling an instinct a program.

Creationists also like to use the same fallacy by calling the world the creation and saying that that indicatess that it had a creator, and to call the patterns found in nature design, then claiming that that requires an intelligent designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's actually not even very controversial these days. The Cambrian explosion was identified in Darwin's time, but was put down to an artifact of an incomplete record- it was supposed to be smoothed out over time. But over the years it has become ever more defined, explosive, but it's not just the Cambrian, it's the entire record that has failed to live up to the smooth steady transitions originally predicted.

Hence splinter groups from Darwinism like punctuated equilibrium.

No, it has been fleshed out in many different ways. You won't find any valid sources supporting your claim. I have linked more than one source that explains this to you. Hiding your head in the sand is not a reliable defense.

where shall we start, Piltdown man? Canals on Mars? Phrenology? Global Cooling?, Steady State?

"[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

LOL!! You just demonstrated one more time that you are totally clueless when it comes to the sciences. You really don't know how to argue at all. Let's take a couple from your list. Piltdown Man was a fraud, if anything it was perpetrated against the theory of evolution. By your standards Harold Camping disproves Christianity. Are you sure that you want to use that argument? And global cooling is an example of getting your science from the popular press. It was never well accepted in the world of science, but it made good headlines.

You really need to learn the basics so that you don't keep making such obvious errors.

Okay, so we dig back through time, we see many shared traits, similarities, changes over time, some gaps, sudden appearances, also a few regressions and dead ends.. but a general progression towards increased sophistication over time right?

No, that is rather poorly worded. We can see traits building on traits. The gaps are predicted by the way. Deposition is not continuous, there is no reason to expect a continuous record. The problem is that creationists have no explanation at all for the fossil record.

So help me understand, what does this pattern of evidence prove as fact, or even strongly suggest to you?

That life is the product of evolution. It is the only explanation out there. Debunked explanations are not explanations. Like most creationists you came to this debate unarmed.

 

[Jose Fly]

And yet, with all the "new fossil evidence" found within the last 50 years (as SZ mentioned), the Wikipedia article on the Cambrian Explosion still admits:

"The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life."

First off, it isn't 'seemingly abrupt'. The well-documented, well-preserved evidence in this case is clear: their appearance in the record is abrupt. As would be expected with creation events.

Those three key points....

1) Whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian.-- Yes, they were separate, diverse creations.

2) What might have caused such rapid change.-- The Creator, with His innovative designing skills.

3) What it would imply about the origin of animal life.-- That there is a Creator.

So you did exactly what Deeje did with the data from the foraminifera fossil record. You challenged us to show you data supporting our arguments, we posted the data, and in response you went to a Wiki article, found some language that you then used as an excuse to wave all that data away.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Deeje when she did this.....do you honestly think that was a valid rebuttal to the data I posted?

Also, you didn't answer the question I asked....why are you asking for this data? Are you open to the possibility that there are indeed transitional fossils between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fauna?

 

[Jose Fly]

All you did was copy and paste things from talk origins.

No I didn't. I wrote that as part of a formal debate I participated in a while ago.

Here was a response to talkorigins.
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/05/more_problems_w/

Nothing in there addresses the specimens that I spoke about.

It isn't a matter of evolutionists vs creationists and/or ID proponents. Many in their respective fields disagree with what you've said and they are not creationists and/or ID proponents.

Then let's see it.

 

[ArtieE]

What if you were wrong similar to the ones who believed in Poseidon and Thor....etc

I don't know what you mean. Wikipedia lists quite a few creator gods, Category:Creator gods - Wikipedia, and I could be wrong and anyone of those could exist. Either show beyond reasonable doubt that one or more of those exist, or I just have to die and then just see which one(s) can be bothered to show up, if any at all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The first three domains, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucaryota, took billions of years to evolve. They didn't possess hard body parts, and still don't.

Once multicellular life took off, adaptive radiation to fill the available niches occurred relatively rapidly. That's what is meant by the Cambrian explosion. It appears to have occurred over 20-25 million years.



That's a religious belief, and it contradicts the consensus of the qualified experts in the field. Why would a reason and evidence based thinker take the opinion of the religious community and its faith based thinkers over that of the scientists in the latter's area of expertise?

This question is analogous to the one that the creationists here have all steadfastly avoided:

where have I heard this before?
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
Hoyle found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"


Just like Hoyle, your're the one using ideology to base a conclusion on- I don't have any problem with science that might seem to support a theistic conclusion, I think we should follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless.

Why would we toss out a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for the available fossil, biological, and biogeographical evidence, includes a mechanism that accounts for the diversity and commonality of all life on earth, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition, for an idea that can do none of that?

Agreed! we're much better off without Darwinism

 

[Subduction Zone]

where have I heard this before?
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
Hoyle found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"


Just like Hoyle, your're the one using ideology to base a conclusion on- I don't have any problem with science that might seem to support a theistic conclusion, I think we should follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless.

Hoyle was able to support some of his work in the sciences. He is respected for that. He was not able to support his claims against the Big Bang Theory. That has made his work in that area a bit of a joke. In the sciences what one claims is not important. It is what one is able to support.

Take Newton for example. Not only was he a physicist. He was also an alchemist. He could not support his alchemy beliefs and those are all but forgotten. When one thinks of Newton one thinks of physics and math. Your relying on Hoyle for his unsupported opposition of the Big Bang theory would be similar to relying on Newton for alchemy. You won't get far with either argument.

Agreed! we're much better off without Darwinism

And you demonstrate your ignorance of all of the sciences once again. We don't call acceptance of gravity "Newtonianism, or Einsteinism. Nor is acceptance of the fact of evolution called "Darwinism". Your attempt to personalize it is a bit of an ad hominem attack. Like it or not the theory of evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your only defense is to avoid even understanding the basic concepts behind the sciences.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Okay, so we dig back through time, we see many shared traits, similarities, changes over time, some gaps, sudden appearances, also a few regressions and dead ends.. but a general progression towards increased sophistication over time right?

So help me understand, what does this pattern of evidence prove as fact, or even strongly suggest to you?"

That life is the product of evolution. It is the only explanation out there. Debunked explanations are not explanations. Like most creationists you came to this debate unarmed.

That's interesting because I was describing an automobile junkyard, read it again.

Sorry for the trap! but this is a demonstration of science: 101 Subduction, you have to look at all evidence objectively, without preconceived conclusions. dispassionately, you are entirely capable of critical thought, but you display a lot of passion in this debate- and this never helps cold logical analysis.


It's far easier said than done I realize. This exact pattern is overwhelmingly used by Darwinists to quite honestly and understandably conclude a natural unguided process, yet as demonstrated, there is nothing whatsoever in that pattern that does not work at least as well for designed products.

So was there anything else that you found convincing about the theory? or was that fossil pattern the main clincher for you?

 

[ArtieE]

Just like Hoyle, your're the one using ideology to base a conclusion on- I don't have any problem with science that might seem to support a theistic conclusion, I think we should follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless.

If you have any evidence for the existence of your god then tell us what it is and how science should proceed following it to your god so we can get hold of him and start a constructive dialogue and learn the secrets of the universe. First we should tell him to update his means of communication from stone tablets to the internet.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hoyle was able to support some of his work in the sciences. He is respected for that. He was not able to support his claims against the Big Bang Theory. That has made his work in that area a bit of a joke. In the sciences what one claims is not important. It is what one is able to support.

Take Newton for example. Not only was he a physicist. He was also an alchemist. He could not support his alchemy beliefs and those are all but forgotten. When one thinks of Newton one thinks of physics and math. Your relying on Hoyle for his unsupported opposition of the Big Bang theory would be similar to relying on Newton for alchemy. You won't get far with either argument.



And you demonstrate your ignorance of all of the sciences once again. We don't call acceptance of gravity "Newtonianism, or Einsteinism. Nor is acceptance of the fact of evolution called "Darwinism". Your attempt to personalize it is a bit of an ad hominem attack. Like it or not the theory of evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your only defense is to avoid even understanding the basic concepts behind the sciences.

As above, Piltdown man, phrenology, steady state- were 'solid science', while the big bang & quantum mechanics were still supernatural pseudoscience.

So I am rather less interested in what is labeled 'scientific fact' and rather more interested in what is actually true, aren't you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your own arguments defeat you when turned back onto your beliefs. Watch:

What is a theory or hypothesis? It is a suggestion as to what might have or could have taken place, hopefully backed up by substantial proof for the validity of the theory.

What is a biblical myth but a suggestion. Where is your substantial proof of the validity of the myth?

But if science can put words in the mouths of the fossils, how much notice can we take of their musings and conjecture about everything else?

If religionists can put words in the mouth of an alleged god, why should we pay attention to anything they say?

There is no "real" evidence...it is all manufactured and interpreted to fit what they want to believe.

There is no evidence for the Christian god. Your apoliogists are all manufactured to fit what you want to believe.

"The strength of scientific evidence" is based on what?...."the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls". Who makes those statistical analyses and who tests the strength of scientific controls?

The strength of religious assertions is based on what?

Surprisingly enough, I haven't seen any testable hypothesis in evolutionary science to date, that had a single shred of substantiated evidence to back up any of their many suggestions.

Not surprisingly, Christianity makes almost no testable claims, and those that it makes failed testing. Try moving a mountain with faith, or accomplishing anything with prayer.

Do do understand that suggestions are not facts, don't you?

You do understand that religious claims are suppositions, not facts, don't you?

Falsification is never going to come from science because that would destroy their theory.

Actually, failure to falsify a falsifiable claim is pretty good evidence that the claim is true. The few falsifiable claims of religion have been falsified.

Any dissenters will be humiliated and lose their credibility.

You explained that about your church.

As for other aspects of proof for the existence of a Creator who is personally interested in those who are interested in him, I have much personal experience, which would be as meaningless to you are your protestations are to me.

Isn't that just as strong an argument against a god? I have plenty of personal experience that the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist.

Who told you that all this evidence has been presented? Whatever was presented was dismantled in a very short space of time

You dismantled nothing.

Your apologetics arguments, however, have all been refuted easily as is the case right now once again.

And they contained no evidence for a god. Where's your proof? All I've seen are suggestions, suppositions, and inferences.

I've yet to see a god create a new taxonomical family.

Sure, micro-creation can occur, as when man builds a computer, a watch, a 747, or paints a painting. But where's your proof that macro-creation by an intelligent designer, such as a planet or a star, has ever occurred? Nobody's ever seen it done. By your reckoning, that rules out the possibility.

You got something more convincing?

No kidding. Faith and a Bible just don't cut it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you have any evidence for the existence of your god then tell us what it is and how science should proceed following it to your god so we can get hold of him and start a constructive dialogue and learn the secrets of the universe.

were doing a pretty good job already I'd say!

but how's the search for multiverses going, any luck there yet?

 

[Jose Fly]

"Okay, so we dig back through time, we see many shared traits, similarities, changes over time, some gaps, sudden appearances, also a few regressions and dead ends.. but a general progression towards increased sophistication over time right?

So help me understand, what does this pattern of evidence prove as fact, or even strongly suggest to you?"



That's interesting because I was describing an automobile junkyard, read it again.

Don't you have anything else besides this, Piltdown Man, Holyle/BB, and evolution being a "Victorian idea"?

@Subduction Zone FYI, I pointed out the fundamental flaw in Guy's analogy months ago (mistakenly relies on the assumption that "same patterns = same mechanisms") and what did he do? Ignored it and never responded to me again.

Such is the nature of creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Okay, so we dig back through time, we see many shared traits, similarities, changes over time, some gaps, sudden appearances, also a few regressions and dead ends.. but a general progression towards increased sophistication over time right?

So help me understand, what does this pattern of evidence prove as fact, or even strongly suggest to you?"



That's interesting because I was describing an automobile junkyard, read it again.

Sorry for the trap! but this is a demonstration of science: 101 Subduction, you have to look at all evidence objectively, without preconceived conclusions. dispassionately, you are entirely capable of critical thought, but you display a lot of passion in this debate- and this never helps cold logical analysis.


It's far easier said than done I realize, this exact pattern is overwhelmingly used to conclude a natural unguided process, yet as demonstrated, there is nothing whatsoever in that pattern that does not work at least as well for designed products.

So was there anything else that you found convincing about the theory? or was that fossil pattern the main clincher for you?

Sorry but you are wrong as usual. You do not see the same nested hierarchy in car development as you do in evolution.

I know this is difficult for you, but you really should try to be honest if you want to debate this topic. For example a spark plug built for a Chevy will work in many Fords, even though the cars developed separately. A stereo from one fits in another very easily. On the contrary we do not see items that arose after a split in evolution that can be transferred from one form of life to another. We do not see feathers on horses for example. A Pegasus, at least a horse with wings, is possible with creationism, it is not possible with evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't you have anything else besides this, Piltdown Man, Holyle/BB, and evolution being a "Victorian idea"?

@Subduction Zone FYI, I pointed out the fundamental flaw in Guy's analogy months ago (mistakenly relies on the assumption that "same patterns = same mechanisms") and what did he do? Ignored it and never responded to me again.

Such is the nature of creationism.

Or as I like to call it, the Ostrich defense (yes I know that Ostriches do not hide their heads in the sand):

 

[Subduction Zone]

As above, Piltdown man, phrenology, steady state- were 'solid science', while the big bang & quantum mechanics were still supernatural pseudoscience.

So I am rather less interested in what is labeled 'scientific fact' and rather more interested in what is actually true, aren't you?

Nope, you are gravely mistaken and cannot support these claims of yours. Why make stuff up? The only thing that is close to being correct is your claim about the steady state, that was assumed but never proven. All you can do is to quote people out of context that opposed an idea.

If you understood the basics of science you would not make these errors. Once again I would be more than happy to take you through the basics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's begin by going over the scientific method. Here is link that explains it in rather simple terms:

Steps of the Scientific Method

And look, a pretty picture:

Now take phrenology for example and try to run it through the scientific method. I doubt if you will be able to get very far.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry but you are wrong as usual. You do not see the same nested hierarchy in car development as you do in evolution.

I know this is difficult for you, but you really should try to be honest if you want to debate this topic. For example a spark plug built for a Chevy will work in many Fords, even though the cars developed separately. A stereo from one fits in another very easily. On the contrary we do not see items that arose after a split in evolution that can be transferred from one form of life to another. We do not see feathers on horses for example. A Pegasus, at least a horse with wings, is possible with creationism, it is not possible with evolution.

actually we do...

Xenotransfusion

to name just one example. And of course there are many car parts that won't work in others, so again it's a wash, but got you thinking!

And oddly, this exact sort of interchangeability is usually an argument FOR Darwinism, not against it, you haven't switched sides already have you?