The Evidence for Evolution in the Fossil Record

[ImmortalFlame]

Not sure which phrase you are referring to,

do you mean when Dawkins said about the Cambrian fossil record- "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"?

Yes. That is exactly the quote mine I am referring to.

I am still awaiting your retraction.

 

[Ouroboros]

How do you go from "complicated" to "designed"? There are tons of complex things that aren't designed.

And here's an interesting thing:

Self-organization is a process where some form of overall order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not necessarily directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

Wiki: Self-organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, chaos can self-organize and become complex and functional without a designer.

 

[Curious George]

This thread runs through many atheist creation myths like 'Big Crunch' which Hawking posited to 'make God redundant' in his own words.- I agree with you- move on- it should not be about trying to make God redundant, but finding the truth, whatever the implications

That some atheists and theists have and continue to make the mistakes of refusing evidence or failing to acknowledge a theory is an unfortunate truth. I am glad we agree on this.

Hopefully we can agree to recognize the fact that evolution occurs as well.

 

[leibowde84]

complex functional mechanisms, not simply complex- scattering the code on this website would give you something complex, but not functional

but, isn't that just the difference between living and non living entities? While we don't know how that actually happened, we do not yet have any reasonable reason to doubt that it had natural causes. and maybe the only difference at the base of it is the will to survive.

 

[leibowde84]

And here's an interesting thing:

Wiki: Self-organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, chaos can self-organize and become complex and functional without a designer.

Whoa!!

 

[Ouroboros]

Whoa!!

Here's what Scholarpedia (a new wiki that I didn't know about until today. It's apparently peer-reviewed) says

Self-organization is the spontaneous often seemingly purposeful formation of spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal structures or functions in systems composed of few or many components. In physics, chemistry and biology self-organization occurs in open systems driven away from thermal equilibrium. The process of self-organization can be found in many other fields also, such as economy, sociology, medicine, technology.

Many objects in our surrounding and daily life such as furniture, houses, cars, TV-sets, computers are man made. On the other hand, especially in the animate world, objects grow, acquire their form, and function without being created by humans. The animal kingdom abounds of examples. It is increasingly recognized that even the human brain may be considered as a self-organizingsystem as well as quite a number of manifestations of human activity, such as in economy and sociology. But processes of self-organization can be found also in the inanimate world: formation of cloud streets, planetary systems, galaxies etc.
...
Evolution

• Mutation and selection, prebiotic evolution, Eigen-Schuster hypercycle.
• Self-organization as a mechanism of evolution (Kauffman, 1993)

Self-organization - Scholarpedia

 

[shawn001]

sorry id

His quote not mine, not really practical to quote the entire book here... but of course I don't think this was an admission of being a closet skeptic!
But he does state the unambiguous, uncontroversial observation that phylum largely appeared suddenly in the fossil record, without direct evolutionary history in a geological blink of an eye. There's no way around this observation- It's a great point of debate among all scientists- skeptics of evolution or not
Of course he defends this with a litany of excuses for the lack of transitional fossils.. which is fine, but excuses do not serve in lieu of missing evidence do they?, no matter how good- even if you CAN prove your dog ate your homework, it doesn't entitle you to a passing grade, the burden of proof is still on you.

Before you even get to any complex life forms though there is still this Guy?

"Some of the oldest and first fossils are the ones that evolved photosynthesis and why you breath Oxygen on this planet and not natural gas. Before you get to why are there still wolves or "kinds" or any animals.

As well as when the Earth first formed it did not have van allen belts so life would have been fried by solar radiation, not to mention constant meteor bombardment and magma. You jump much later into life, before a lot of other things happened. When the iron core of the Earth cooled it created the Van Allen belts and life could survive. You wouldn't survive on the surface of the moon, from solar radiation and no oxygen. Not to mention how the moon formed as well."

Do you agree the process of evolution changed our atmosphere? Or with what I wrote above.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Before you even get to any complex life forms though there is still this Guy?

"Some of the oldest and first fossils are the ones that evolved photosynthesis and why you breath Oxygen on this planet and not natural gas. Before you get to why are there still wolves or "kinds" or any animals.

As well as when the Earth first formed it did not have van allen belts so life would have been fried by solar radiation, not to mention constant meteor bombardment and magma. You jump much later into life, before a lot of other things happened. When the iron core of the Earth cooled it created the Van Allen belts and life could survive. You wouldn't survive on the surface of the moon, from solar radiation and no oxygen. Not to mention how the moon formed as well."

Do you agree the process of evolution changed our atmosphere? Or with what I wrote above.

we can use the word evolution to describe changes in cars, the atmosphere and life, I don't think any were accidental.

But you make my original point comparing todays 'classical evolution' with yesterdays classical physics

The formation of solar systems and our planet illustrates this- it would never have happened under simple classical physics as once believed, those laws were just to simple to overcome entropy and create emergent functional systems-
the 'evolution' of our solar system and planet required very detailed precise instructions, blueprints, guiding very specific results- without which matter would collapse into its simplest state

So too with life, the superficial observation of life evolving itself into its specific forms by a simple intuitive process of random mutation and natural selection, is just that, a superficial observation. Without an underlying blueprint to guide the process- it would quickly collapse into it's simplest state

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes. That is exactly the quote mine I am referring to.

I am still awaiting your retraction.

It's Dawkins quote, you'd need to ask him to retract it, but again - the sudden appearance of so much of Earth's life in so short a period is hardly a controversial observation- honestly!

That's why he used the phrase 'its as though they [fossils] were just planted there with no evolutionary history'

I realize it touches a nerve with some belief systems, but I respect other's beliefs- and there is an interesting debate to be had on why this observation is such, but you will find most agree with it- you can't wish it away.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

but, isn't that just the difference between living and non living entities? While we don't know how that actually happened, we do not yet have any reasonable reason to doubt that it had natural causes. and maybe the only difference at the base of it is the will to survive.

It's about probabilities, the fact that we only have one single platform- DNA, alone demonstrates that life isn't the sort of thing that spontaneously organizes itself out of any old materials for no particular reason-
and the fact that this produced a single sentient being out of millions, capable of marveling at creation, alone shows us that this is not the sort of result evolution tends to achieve in any species.

compound the improbabilities of these events with the formation of the universe/Earth in the first place, and most would, and do, call that reasonable reason to doubt- - all debatable of course, hence the existence of this site!

 

[LuisDantas]

we can use the word evolution to describe changes in cars, the atmosphere and life,

Sure we can. But that is very much extrapolating the parameters of what science calls evolution. You might just as reasonably call magnetism "love".

I don't think any were accidental.

Do you think magnectic attraction is designed?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's Dawkins quote, you'd need to ask him to retract it, but again - the sudden appearance of so much of Earth's life in so short a period is hardly a controversial observation- honestly!

That's why he used the phrase 'its as though they [fossils] were just planted there with no evolutionary history'

Come on. It is dishonest to present that without the proper context.

The absence of a representative fossil record of that period is hardly a big deal, although it is stretched thin by Creationists hoping for anything to grasp to.

A couple of links on this matter:

Dawkins: Why Intelligent Design proponents are so fond of gaps - The Panda's Thumb

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps" (Quote #40)

It took less than ten minutes for me to google this and read the context, so I expect you will learn better than to keep describing that quote in such a jaundiced way.

I realize it touches a nerve with some belief systems, but I respect other's beliefs- and there is an interesting debate to be had on why this observation is such, but you will find most agree with it- you can't wish it away.

Sorry, Guy. That what you are calling "respect" here... is not at all respect.

It is manipulative misrepresentation. It is an attempt to self-servingly present science as a belief.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sure we can. But that is very much extrapolating the parameters of what science calls evolution. You might just as reasonably call magnetism "love".




Do you think magnectic attraction is designed?

The phenomena itself, yes of course

 

[LuisDantas]

The phenomena itself, yes of course

Why don't you call it love?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Come on. It is dishonest to present that without the proper context.

The absence of a representative fossil record of that period is hardly a big deal, although it is stretched thin by Creationists hoping for anything to grasp to.

A couple of links on this matter:

Dawkins: Why Intelligent Design proponents are so fond of gaps - The Panda's Thumb

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps" (Quote #40)

It took less than ten minutes for me to google this and read the context, so I expect you will learn better than to keep describing that quote in such a jaundiced way.




Sorry, Guy. That what you are calling "respect" here... is not at all respect.

It is manipulative misrepresentation. It is an attempt to self-servingly present science as a belief.

I think there is a little misunderstanding - I don't think Dawkins was admitting to being a closet creationist! that's not the point, but gaps in the fossil record are a fact- and particularly notable during the Cambrian.

there is no malice or inaccuracy in using the quote, it's commonly used because it's a concise quote from a notable evolutionist- neither is it proof of intelligent design- it only highlights an area of interesting debate- among evolutionists and atheists themselves.

Of course there are 'explanations' for the missing evidence, but proving your dog ate your homework does not qualify for a passing grade. The burden of proof is still the same

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why don't you call it love?

I think creation would not exist without a purpose, that this requires a consciousness, and that love is the highest purpose of consciousness, so if you like we can call magnetism an aspect of love yes!

 

[LuisDantas]

I think there is a little misunderstanding - I don't think Dawkins was admitting to being a closet creationist! that's not the point, but gaps in the fossil record are a fact- and particularly notable during the Cambrian.

there is no malice or inaccuracy in using the quote, it's commonly used because it's a concise quote from a notable evolutionist- neither is it proof of intelligent design- it only highlights an area of interesting debate- among evolutionists and atheists themselves.

Of course there are 'explanations' for the missing evidence, but proving your dog ate your homework does not qualify for a passing grade. The burden of proof is still the same

The very idea that there are gaps in the fossil record is an anachronism now. For decades, at least.

You are misrepreseting facts with a passion, and that bodes ill for your credibility.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think creation would not exist without a purpose, that this requires a consciousness, and that love is the highest purpose of consciousness, so if you like we can call magnetism an aspect of love yes!

Fair enough. Then you may call whatever you like evolution as well.

It would still be advisable not to present it as if it were the scientific concept used in biology.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think creation would not exist without a purpose...

If I may interject...

This seems to be where all of you Creationism/Design advocates start, and it requires explanation before going forward. It's essentially a presuppositional argument which is only grounded in personal preference. That's not a very strong foundation for arguments of truth, is it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's Dawkins quote, you'd need to ask him to retract it,

It is not the quote that I have a problem with - it is the fact that you deliberately took the quote out of context - and without giving a source - in order to misrepresent Dawkins' beliefs. That's why I am accusing you of quote mining. This has been explained to you repeatedly - why is it so difficult to understand?

I am still awaiting your retraction.

but again - the sudden appearance of so much of Earth's life in so short a period is hardly a controversial observation- honestly!

Repeating a lie does not make it true. The Cambrian explosion was not a "sudden appearance of much of earth's life", it was a relatively rapid period of speciation in which the original few phyla diversified into many new phyla over a period of MILLIONS OF YEARS. That is not "sudden", nor did they simply "appear" - they had ancestors.

I am still awaiting your retraction.

That's why he used the phrase 'its as though they [fossils] were just planted there with no evolutionary history'

And, as has been shown by me and other posters who have pointed it out to you, that one out-of-context quote in no way means that he agrees with your assertion. Have you read and understood the context of the actual quote yet?

I am still awaiting your retraction.

I realize it touches a nerve with some belief systems,

The only "belief" it "touches a nerve with" is my belief in intellectual honesty. What you did was nakedly dishonest.

I am still awaiting your retraction.

but I respect other's beliefs- and there is an interesting debate to be had on why this observation is such, but you will find most agree with it- you can't wish it away.

And yet nobody has agreed with it, most of them have pointed out that you are wrong, and a couple aside from myself have shown you that the quotation you used was deliberately misleading. It's really very simple, all you need to do is say: "I didn't know the context of the quote as it was provided to me by an unreliable source, and I apologize for misrepresenting Dawkins' views by implying he in any way agrees with my uninformed view of the Cambrian explosion, which I made in haste and, in retrospect, in error", and then we can continue debating like reasonable people and I can stop repeating myself (which, contrary to the evidence, is something I hate having to do).

I am still awaiting your retraction.