• 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!

What does the fossil record say?

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Riddle me this: why did God create the "kinds" in such an order as to imply they evolved?

Why don't we find Mammals in the Cambrian before we find mammal like reptiles?
(just for the sake of keeping with the OP... ie the fossil record.)

Why did God create Montremes and Marsupials before Placental mammals? Did he need the practice first? Was the design not quite right yet? Or was he trying to play a big prank on us?

wa:do
 

outhouse

Atheistically
that post deals with reason and reality, you will probably not get a real answer back.

all the two can do is pick on what they do not know, which is allot.
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
So we're in agreement that it is evidence of evolution. Correct?
There is no "evolutionary process" to begin with.
The "evidence" in its favor is non-existent.
Size of beaks, color of moths, immunity from malaria, diet change in microbes - none of these things can account for the tremendous changes that are necessary for one type of animal to change into another.

"……….the current debate within scientific disciplines over whether chemical and biological (i.e., neo- Darwinian) evolution can adequately account for the origin of life and the development of life into its current forms. This debate is scientific and not religious in nature.

Scientific discoveries of the last few decades have led to greater skepticism over the ability of the mechanisms of biological or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory to account for the complexity of life we see today."
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=619
But that's just it. I've convoluted nothing. I've given you absolutely no reason to assume that I posit immunity being a factor for speciation. You keep harping on this and I never introduced the notion.
So why don't you correct your buddies when they do?
Nor have I suggested that it is....so why are still rattling on about this?
for the very same reason that you keep rattling on about "beneficial mutations" that add nothing to the necessary changes that would make evolution noticeable.

No, the point was to show wilnson that "beneficial Mutations" do occur and are part of the Evolutionary process which you seem to agree as well as the wiki source you cited a few pages ago in addition to being what we see in "Natural Selection" which is something wilson's "creation scientist" confirmed.
There is no such thing as "natural selection;" your "beneficial mutations" are not really beneficialecause they do not improve any organism; there is no "evolutionary process;" even reputable scientists confirmed this. (see above)


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I think Wilsoncole and I want you to provide evidence of........... one kind morphing into another kind.

I don't know what a "kind" is but the ToE does not say that one species "morphs" into a completely different species such as cats becoming birds. If you continue to believe this or assert this then you are ill-informed as to what the ToE says.

We understand this is likely the best you can provide or undoubted you would have moved on by now.

The fact of the matter is...it IS evidence. You keep confirming it with every wiki you cite.

While you continue to use things like immunity, or changing colours, or growing a smaller or larger beak, you have not provided evidence of the mechanism that morphs one kind into another.

Because I don't know what a "kind" is in relation to Evolution. Additionally, Evolution does not say one species "morphs" into another. If this is what you're getting at then your understanding of Evolution needs work.

There are differences in your DNA and my DNA yet we are the same species. We are not going to diverge and speciate from each other because of your immunity or the colour of our skin or hair.

Should we be speciating? There's nothing, currently, dictating we should be. Humans don't fall into the categories for speciation, (Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), so I fail to see your reasoning here. It's as if you reason as a child in grade school learning Evolution for the first time.

These are somatic changes and may influence survival of the fittest. However survival of the fittest does not, in itself, illustrate how a chimppy creature became human, and neither does the immune system.

No one, but you, is suggesting such a thing. We aren't. Even so.....It still shows evolution at work.
 

newhope101

Active Member
Riddle me this: why did God create the "kinds" in such an order as to imply they evolved?
HE didn't. Evolution shouldn't have had a Cambrian explosion, then you could have shown how things evolved nice and steady like, instead of exploding into complex life, eyes and all and requiring punctuated evolution. The bible speaks to creative days and the making life in stages. Rather an initial creation of simple life to form ecosystems etc then another creative event in the Cambrian. You still have kinds here today from the cambrain and precambrain virtually unchanged. You have heard this before. Have you forgotten? The fossil evidence fits nicely with creation also. Evolutionists have invented the ancestry myth.

Why don't we find Mammals in the Cambrian before we find mammal like reptiles?
(just for the sake of keeping with the OP... ie the fossil record.)
Maybe it's because you haven't found them yet just like lots of your common ancestors and your hypothetical species. Maybe they were part of the 5th days creation, after, the fish and the birds.

Why did God create Montremes and Marsupials before Placental mammals? Did he need the practice first? Was the design not quite right yet? Or was he trying to play a big prank on us?
Do your researchers really know what went on? Or rather have they constructed models that suit the wish list? Individual traits arise independently in kinds. Remeber birds and mammals are warm blooded but birds did not evolve from mammals did they? Or did they?

They are conventionally treated as comprising a single order Monotremata, though a recent classification[20] proposes to divide them into the orders Platypoda (the platypus along with its fossil relatives) and Tachyglossa (the echidnas, or spiny anteaters). The entire grouping is also traditionally placed into a subclass Prototheria, which was extended to include several fossil orders, but these are no longer seen as constituting a natural group allied to monotreme ancestry. A controversial hypothesis now relates the monotremes to a different assemblage of fossil mammals in a clade termed Australosphenida.[7][21]
Monotreme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears to me that your cladistics is saying that platypus and all the variations that look like a platypus are a kind and should be platypus, and... they aren't echidnas, because echidnas and spiny anteaters are a kind and they belong together. Well done, your researchers may be getting closer to the truth, except for the theorised presumption of ancestry..
wa:do



Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?

So is all the arch and microraptor evidence you produced as evidence of the ancestry of birds from dinos heading for the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past with many other great ideas?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
You are misrepresenting different arguments into one to cause confusion.

No I'm not. You rattle on about "irreducible complexity" and I posted the video on the flying fish, which you mentioned, to illustrate that it is not "irreducible complex" considering if the fins were smaller and the fish was not able to glide above the water it would still be able to swim below it.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
There is no "evolutionary process" to begin with.
The "evidence" in its favor is non-existent.

Yet you very own source sided with natural selection. Natural Selection is a process that happens in the Evolutionary process.

none of these things can account for the tremendous changes that are necessary for one type of animal to change into another.

I totally agree considering that's not what the ToE says.

"&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.the current debate within scientific disciplines over whether chemical and biological (i.e., neo- Darwinian) evolution can adequately account for the origin of life and the development of life into its current forms. This debate is scientific and not religious in nature.

Once again I totally agree because the ToE is not about Abiogenesis. It's not about describing the "origins" of "life" rather it is about describing the origin of species.


for the very same reason that you keep rattling on about "beneficial mutations" that add nothing to the necessary changes that would make evolution noticeable.

Understanding Sickle Cell Disease and the Sickle Cell Trait, which you seemed to not know the difference in previous posts, IS noticeable in regards to Evolution by Biologist.

There is no such thing as "natural selection;" your "beneficial mutations" are not really beneficialecause they do not improve any organism; there is no "evolutionary process;" even reputable scientists confirmed this. (see above)


http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html (Your Source You Cited)
DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."


:thud:
 
Last edited:

newhope101

Active Member
I don't know what a "kind" is but the ToE does not say that one species "morphs" into a completely different species such as cats becoming birds. If you continue to believe this or assert this then you are ill-informed as to what the ToE says.
You know that is not what I am suggesting. That is a cheap shot. Your immunity example is only somatic and does not explain a bird selecting for a half wing and that trait fixing in the population, etc. Even I as a creationists can think of challenges. Would you like me to help you?


The fact of the matter is...it IS evidence. You keep confirming it with every wiki you cite.
Nope it's about as convincing as saying you and I are different species, if I'm not immune to chicken pox and you are. But as I said I understand why you cannot produce much better. You should look harder.


Because I don't know what a "kind" is in relation to Evolution. Additionally, Evolution does not say one species "morphs" into another. If this is what you're getting at then your understanding of Evolution needs work.
A kind is an organism that maintians 99.9% single nucleotide poly morphisisms (PNA's)..that my definition. You can use that to talk to me.


Should we be speciating? There's nothing, currently, dictating we should be. Humans don't fall into the categories for speciation, No your researchers decided to use the term 'races' for humans, so they wouldn't look silly.(Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), so I fail to see your reasoning here. It's as if you reason as a child in grade school learning Evolution for the first time.
What? I think you need to do BOI 101..it doesn't mean much in the grand sheme of things what either of us think? You're the one that needs to have the last word even when you are shown to be off the mark.


No one, but you, is suggesting such a thing. We aren't. Even so.....It still shows evolution at work.
It shows we can build immunity and adapt to pathogens.. Your fruitflys grew legs off their heads when you tried to mess with them.


It shows you can't think of a better example than immunity to illustrate evolution and that my friend says it all.
 

newhope101

Active Member
Yet you very own source sided with natural selection. Natural Selection is a process that happens in the Evolutionary process.



I totally agree considering that's not what the ToE says.



Once again I totally agree because the ToE is not about Abiogenesis. It's not about describing the "origins" of "life" rather it is about describing the origin of species.




Understanding Sickle Cell Disease and the Sickle Cell Trait, which you seemed to not know the difference in previous posts, IS noticeable in regards to Evolution by Biologist.




http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html (Your Source You Cited)
DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."


:thud:


Oh goodness this is going to be another thing like the no single creationist biologist thing.

Don't you have anything to say about the bird thing I spoke to?

Are you getting your rocks off because immunity is the best example of a chimp evolving into a human, you can provide? You do not appear to be able to refute anything else. It's as if you are lost for words.
 
Last edited:

newhope101

Active Member
Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?

So is all the arch and microraptor evidence you produced as evidence of the ancestry of birds from dinos heading for the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past with many other great ideas?


While you're answering that PW, do please let us know all about the pterosaur dated 220 million years ago that hollow bones like birds and flew but wasn't a bird because why???? Was it feathers. Gee maybe they grew feathers instead of fluff to keep warm as an adaptation. Flight was well underway by the time the dinos that were the ancestors of birds appeared, There also plain old bird footprints that predate them also. Birds were created around the same time as sea creatures or shortly after, as the bible says and your evidence supports. They did not evolve from tetrapods of any sort.

Because pterosaur anatomy has been so heavily modified for flight, and immediate "missing link" predecessors have not so far been described, the ancestry of pterosaurs is not well understood. Several hypotheses have been advanced,

"The anatomy of pterosaurs was highly modified from their reptilian ancestors for the demands of flight. Pterosaur bones were hollow and air filled, like the bones of birds. They had a keeled breastbone that was developed for the attachment of flight muscles and an enlarged brain that shows specialised features associated with flight.[4] In some later pterosaurs, the backbone over the shoulders fused into a structure known as a notarium, which served to stiffen the torso during flight, and provide a stable support for the scapula (shoulder blade)."
Pterosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus_northropi


Zhejiangopterus, an azhdarchid from the Cretaceous of China, 85myo

"Pterosaurs (pronounced /&#712;t&#603;r&#601;s&#596;r/, from the Greek &#960;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#972;&#963;&#945;&#965;&#961;&#959;&#962;, pterosauros, meaning "winged lizard", often referred to as pterodactyls, from the Greek &#960;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#948;&#940;&#954;&#964;&#965;&#955;&#959;&#962;, pterodaktulos, meaning "winged finger" /&#716;t&#603;r&#601;&#712;dækt&#616;l/) were flying reptiles of the clade or order Pterosauria. They existed from the late Triassic to the end of the CretaceousPeriod (220 to 65.5 million years ago)."

Then of course there are flying fish, and gliding mammals. It appears flight evolved many times.

So your arch and microraptor fossils, that PW and others, loves to post as evidence of evolution, apparently are just a big fluff when it comes to flight.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
HE didn't. Evolution shouldn't have had a Cambrian explosion, then you could have shown how things evolved nice and steady like, instead of exploding into complex life, eyes and all and requiring punctuated evolution.
I'll say it again:

The Cambrian explosion was a period of over 6 million years. It was a period of comparatively rapid evolution caused by a combination of extremely rapid reproduction and high levels of environmental attrition, among other things.

The Cambrian explosion not only does not contradict evolution, but is extremely strong evidence for evolution since the Cambrian explosion clearly shows us how few species can become many species over a period of time. Or, are you going to assert that the Cambrian explosion was just lots of life forms appearing out of nowhere?

Now, stop lying.

The bible speaks to creative days and the making life in stages. Rather an initial creation of simple life to form ecosystems etc then another creative event in the Cambrian. You still have kinds here today from the cambrain and precambrain virtually unchanged. You have heard this before. Have you forgotten? The fossil evidence fits nicely with creation also. Evolutionists have invented the ancestry myth.
The fossil evidence fits with creation? So, God created lots of different species, then he killed off most of them and replaced them with lots more species that looked and functioned slightly differently? Then he did the exact same thing again and again over millions of years? Because that's what the fossil evidence shows us, and if that's evidence for creation then your God is obviously an idiot.
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
Size of beaks, color of moths, immunity from malaria, diet change in microbes - none of these things can account for the tremendous changes that are necessary for one type of animal to change into another.
Just how long do you think it would take for a single cell organism to change into a fully formed human being?
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
Evolution shouldn't have had a Cambrian explosion, then you could have shown how things evolved nice and steady like, instead of exploding into complex life, eyes and all and requiring punctuated evolution.
Before the Cambrian era, living organisms only had soft body parts making fossilization extremely rare. Which means there was probably much more precambrian life than the fossil record suggests. And since organisms with hard body parts are capable of existing in environments soft bodied organisms cannot, shouldn't we expect to find many more cambrian fossils than precambrian fossils?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
HE didn't. Evolution shouldn't have had a Cambrian explosion, then you could have shown how things evolved nice and steady like, instead of exploding into complex life, eyes and all and requiring punctuated evolution. The bible speaks to creative days and the making life in stages. Rather an initial creation of simple life to form ecosystems etc then another creative event in the Cambrian. You still have kinds here today from the cambrain and precambrain virtually unchanged. You have heard this before. Have you forgotten? The fossil evidence fits nicely with creation also. Evolutionists have invented the ancestry myth.
It didn't... no matter how much you ignore the evidence of life before the Cambrian exists doesn't make it go away. Doing this isn not an argument: :ignore:

Although, your "creative day" argument brings up another interesting implication about God.... Slow and unresponsive. So many of his creations died the same "day" he made them it makes him look even less intelligent and powerful. Not only does it take him millions of years to create things in a "day" but he can't keep them around after he makes them.

We just happen to find fossils in an order that shows evolution? Even within your proposed "kinds" we find them in an order that shows evolution. Why do we find small and unspecialized mammals before we find their larger/more specialized decendants?
Did god not have very many ideas for what he wanted?

Maybe it's because you haven't found them yet just like lots of your common ancestors and your hypothetical species. Maybe they were part of the 5th days creation, after, the fish and the birds.
Really? With all the millions of fossils we have and the hundreds of million of years between the Cambrian and the first fossil birds found?
Not a single bird fossil from before the Jurassic?
Did God only make a couple of them and forget them for all that time while he made thousands of types of bugs and other things for us to find? Does God just really love invertebrates more?

And he let all these things die to be fossilized before he got around to inventing death after the fall?

Do your researchers really know what went on? Or rather have they constructed models that suit the wish list? Individual traits arise independently in kinds. Remeber birds and mammals are warm blooded but birds did not evolve from mammals did they? Or did they?

They are conventionally treated as comprising a single order Monotremata, though a recent classification[20] proposes to divide them into the orders Platypoda (the platypus along with its fossil relatives) and Tachyglossa (the echidnas, or spiny anteaters). The entire grouping is also traditionally placed into a subclass Prototheria, which was extended to include several fossil orders, but these are no longer seen as constituting a natural group allied to monotreme ancestry. A controversial hypothesis now relates the monotremes to a different assemblage of fossil mammals in a clade termed Australosphenida.[7][21]
Monotreme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears to me that your cladistics is saying that platypus and all the variations that look like a platypus are a kind and should be platypus, and... they aren't echidnas, because echidnas and spiny anteaters are a kind and they belong together. Well done, your researchers may be getting closer to the truth, except for the theorised presumption of ancestry..
Doesn't change the fact that egg laying mammals appear before marsupial ones or placental ones.
So stop blowing smoke and address the question.

Did god need to practice on easier things first? Or did he want to trick us?

wa:do

ps... If you are willing to fudge "creative days" into hundreds of millions of years and have death come before the fall in Eden... why should we take Genesis seriously?

If Genesis is the truth and Creation happened.... why do you deny basic facts of Genesis? Is the bible wrong?
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
That is just propaganda, and desperate one at that, Wilson.

One might just as well say that not all teachers agree that math should be taught to children. In fact, it would probably be a more legitimate claim.
When something is a confirmed fact, there is a total lack of desperation.
ALL IS NOT WELL WITH EVOLUTION!!
Further confirmation of that fact follows:
"A 35-year experiment by evolutionists illustrates how things actually work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, the researchers forced selection on populations of fruit flies over hundreds of generations.
They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation.

There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation.

They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations".
"Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I anticipate your usual claim of "quote-mining" so I'll head it off here:

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila : Nature : Nature Publishing Group


Natural selection does not work! Failure with the finch beaks, failure with the moth colors, failure with the E-coli bacteria, failure with the sickle-cell trait - just plain failure!

Just like I've been saying all along.

Your refutation of this should prove interesting.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

&#12288;
Wilson
 

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
Really? With all the millions of fossils we have and the hundreds of million of years between the Cambrian and the first fossil birds found?
Not a single bird fossil from before the Jurassic?
Did God only make a couple of them and forget them for all that time while he made thousands of types of bugs and other things for us to find? Does God just really love invertebrates more?
What's funny is it wasn't but a few pages ago that she claimed evolution is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific. Now she points out a way it could be falsified! Mwa ha ha!
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
Just how long do you think it would take for a single cell organism to change into a fully formed human being?
If that single-celled organism continues to exist, it will NEVER become more than what it is.
Single celled organisms cannot become muti-celled.
Can you name a single example of that happening in nature?
And can the fossil record establish this occurrance?

"A single-celled animal is not just a simple blob of protoplasm. It is a highly complex organism that is able to do everything that it needs to do to live and reproduce—all as one single independent living cell.1 It can move around, find its food, eat its food, digest its food and dispose of the waste. It can reproduce itself into the next generation. It is beyond amazement that this single cell can accomplish all this.
Likewise, a multi-celled animal is able to survive and reproduce. But a multi-celled animal, as the term aptly describes, is composed of different kinds of cells, each kind being specialized to perform the different functions necessary for the success of the organism.
For example, in a multi-celled animal, some cells might be specialized as skin cells, others as nerve cells, others to absorb food, others as blood cells to transport nutrients and oxygen to the other cells, and so on. Unlike single-celled animals, the individual cells in a multi-celled animal cannot survive on their own. If one is separated from the organism, then it will disintegrate.
All the different kinds of cells have to be present, all arranged in the proper way, and all working co-operatively if the organism is to survive. If some of the cells stop working (the blood cells, for example) the whole organism will die.
So, the big question is: if all living things evolved by natural processes by a series of small random steps, how did the first functioning multi-celled animal originate? Remember that, according to evolution, before the first multi-celled animal existed, only singled-celled animals were present on the earth.

So, to obtain a multi-celled animal from single-celled animals, the single cells would need to group together. Perhaps different kinds of single-celled animals existed by this time and it became advantageous for the cells to associate for some mutual benefit.
But just grouping together is not enough. The cells would have to become specialized, that is, give up some of their functions, such as digesting food, to concentrate on other functions. That means they would have to give up their ability to survive on their own and rely on the other cells to provide the functions they had given up.
If these changes were to be successful, the other cells would have to become specialized in complementary functions, and the changes would have to happen at the same time. And all the cells would have to connect together into a structure so the organism would survive as a whole, even though none of its component cells could then survive alone.

THE DECEIT OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE
When you think about the steps needed, and the intricate timing required, it beggars belief. How could it possibly happen by unguided chance? No-one has been able to explain this. There is no plausible detailed account for how the first multi-celled animal could possibly have arisen. But once we by (blind) faith accept that evolution is true, then the transition from single-cell to multi-cell definitely did happen.
I have discovered that, with different aspects of evolution, the lecturers and the text books would describe these sorts of problems in great detail. I think it had a disarming effect on the students. It gave them the impression that the scientists had solved the problem since they described it in detail.

So students would not even imagine that there could be any doubt about evolution. But neither the lecturers nor the textbooks would actually provide answers to these problems.

TIME FOR QUESTIONS
It was at about this point that I put up my hand and called out ‘Excuse me … ’
Students did not usually ask questions in such a large and intimidating gathering.
‘Yes’, the lecturer looked my way.

‘Excuse me, but I was just wondering what evidence there is for this particular animal that you are describing? Have any examples of these been found in the oceans, or have they found any fossils of them?’

She hesitated and removed the slide from the screen.
‘Well, no’, she said. ‘We don’t have any fossils. This is a hypothetical example. It is an animal that must have existed.’
Then she put the next slide up on the screen, looked at it and said, ‘Er, this is a hypothetical too.’
She had displayed the classic diagram of the so-called evolutionary tree that begins with a single cell and diverges into all the different kinds of living things that are alive today.
As she pulled that slide off the screen she said, ‘Look, just because these are hypothetical does not mean that evolution is not true. We see evolution happening all the time. Evolution is just descent with modification … .’
With those statements she opened up more issues.
She mixed her definitions of evolution—bait and switch it’s called.3 Most students would not know the difference, and I had already disrupted the class once. So the lecture went on.
I often wonder what would have happened if I had not asked that question.
Those students would have copied the details down but not known the animal did not exist—that it was a hypothetical construct based on no evidence whatsoever."
Multi-celled animal evolution hypothetical

Well - you asked!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson
 

newhope101

Active Member
I'll say it again:

The Cambrian explosion was a period of over 6 million years. It was a period of comparatively rapid evolution caused by a combination of extremely rapid reproduction and high levels of environmental attrition, among other things.

The Cambrian explosion not only does not contradict evolution, but is extremely strong evidence for evolution since the Cambrian explosion clearly shows us how few species can become many species over a period of time. Or, are you going to assert that the Cambrian explosion was just lots of life forms appearing out of nowhere?

Now, stop lying.


The fossil evidence fits with creation? So, God created lots of different species, then he killed off most of them and replaced them with lots more species that looked and functioned slightly differently? Then he did the exact same thing again and again over millions of years? Because that's what the fossil evidence shows us, and if that's evidence for creation then your God is obviously an idiot.God never said he would stop catastrophes, darls, this is really a silly and desperate line

Oh goodness you are feeling threatened. You are the one that is postulating the Cambrian explosion is anti evolutionary. This is not what I said. I said the Cambrian explosion is good evidence for a creative day, you are the one that needs to explain how the Cambrian explosion came about and why. Good luck..you have a choice of many theories.

I actually do not like to use any of your science against you as it all changes and is mostly biased rubbish. Unfortunately I am stuck with it as flawed and biased and inconsistent and changeable as it is

Don't forget you evos say fossils are rare in these early periods and that is your excuse for not having fossils to back every theory.

Have you read this nature article that suggests multicellul life was here 2.1 billion ya.

The results of an article published in Nature in 2010,[103] have shown that eukaryotic multicellularity, which had been thought to evolve with the beginning of Cambrian Period, might date back to 2.1 billion years ago, which is approximately 1.55 billion years earlier than the date indicated by currently dominating scientific evidence.[104]
.
Phylogenetic techniques
Cladistics is a technique for working out the “family tree” of a set of organisms. It works by the logic that, if groups B and C have more similarities to each other than either has to group A, then B and C are more closely related to each other than either is to A. Characteristics which are compared may be anatomical, such as the presence of a notochord, or molecular, by comparing sequences of DNA or protein. The result of a successful analysis is a hierarchy of clades – groups whose members are believed to share a common ancestor. The cladistic technique is sometimes fallible, as some features, such as wings or camera eyes, evolved more than once, convergently – this must be taken into account in analyses.

From the relationships, it may be possible to constrain the date that lineages first appeared. For instance, if fossils of B or C date to X million years ago and the calculated "family tree" says A was an ancestor of B and C, then A must have evolved more than X million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_radiation#cite_note-102

Many traits arise independently, and does not denote close ancestry. Your whole system both linnean and phylogenic are biased and flawed.
 

newhope101

Active Member
If that single-celled organism continues to exist, it will NEVER become more than what it is.
Single celled organisms cannot become muti-celled.
Can you name a single example of that happening in nature?
And can the fossil record establish this occurrance?

"A single-celled animal is not just a simple blob of protoplasm. It is a highly complex organism that is able to do everything that it needs to do to live and reproduce—all as one single independent living cell.1 It can move around, find its food, eat its food, digest its food and dispose of the waste. It can reproduce itself into the next generation. It is beyond amazement that this single cell can accomplish all this.
Likewise, a multi-celled animal is able to survive and reproduce. But a multi-celled animal, as the term aptly describes, is composed of different kinds of cells, each kind being specialized to perform the different functions necessary for the success of the organism.
For example, in a multi-celled animal, some cells might be specialized as skin cells, others as nerve cells, others to absorb food, others as blood cells to transport nutrients and oxygen to the other cells, and so on. Unlike single-celled animals, the individual cells in a multi-celled animal cannot survive on their own. If one is separated from the organism, then it will disintegrate.
All the different kinds of cells have to be present, all arranged in the proper way, and all working co-operatively if the organism is to survive. If some of the cells stop working (the blood cells, for example) the whole organism will die.
So, the big question is: if all living things evolved by natural processes by a series of small random steps, how did the first functioning multi-celled animal originate? Remember that, according to evolution, before the first multi-celled animal existed, only singled-celled animals were present on the earth.

So, to obtain a multi-celled animal from single-celled animals, the single cells would need to group together. Perhaps different kinds of single-celled animals existed by this time and it became advantageous for the cells to associate for some mutual benefit.
But just grouping together is not enough. The cells would have to become specialized, that is, give up some of their functions, such as digesting food, to concentrate on other functions. That means they would have to give up their ability to survive on their own and rely on the other cells to provide the functions they had given up.
If these changes were to be successful, the other cells would have to become specialized in complementary functions, and the changes would have to happen at the same time. And all the cells would have to connect together into a structure so the organism would survive as a whole, even though none of its component cells could then survive alone.

THE DECEIT OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE
When you think about the steps needed, and the intricate timing required, it beggars belief. How could it possibly happen by unguided chance? No-one has been able to explain this. There is no plausible detailed account for how the first multi-celled animal could possibly have arisen. But once we by (blind) faith accept that evolution is true, then the transition from single-cell to multi-cell definitely did happen.
I have discovered that, with different aspects of evolution, the lecturers and the text books would describe these sorts of problems in great detail. I think it had a disarming effect on the students. It gave them the impression that the scientists had solved the problem since they described it in detail.

So students would not even imagine that there could be any doubt about evolution. But neither the lecturers nor the textbooks would actually provide answers to these problems.

TIME FOR QUESTIONS
It was at about this point that I put up my hand and called out ‘Excuse me … ’
Students did not usually ask questions in such a large and intimidating gathering.
‘Yes’, the lecturer looked my way.

‘Excuse me, but I was just wondering what evidence there is for this particular animal that you are describing? Have any examples of these been found in the oceans, or have they found any fossils of them?’

She hesitated and removed the slide from the screen.
‘Well, no’, she said. ‘We don’t have any fossils. This is a hypothetical example. It is an animal that must have existed.’
Then she put the next slide up on the screen, looked at it and said, ‘Er, this is a hypothetical too.’
She had displayed the classic diagram of the so-called evolutionary tree that begins with a single cell and diverges into all the different kinds of living things that are alive today.
As she pulled that slide off the screen she said, ‘Look, just because these are hypothetical does not mean that evolution is not true. We see evolution happening all the time. Evolution is just descent with modification … .’
With those statements she opened up more issues.
She mixed her definitions of evolution—bait and switch it’s called.3 Most students would not know the difference, and I had already disrupted the class once. So the lecture went on.
I often wonder what would have happened if I had not asked that question.
Those students would have copied the details down but not known the animal did not exist—that it was a hypothetical construct based on no evidence whatsoever."
Multi-celled animal evolution hypothetical

Well - you asked!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

So far Wilsoncole we have had immunity and reproduction offered up as answers to your questions.

I love it. After all the fruitfly and bacteria experiments, after all the millions of dollars wasted trying to prove and illustrate evolutionary processes at work, immunity and reproduction are the best this lot can come up with.

This is truly refreshing for me.
 
Top