Science v. Religion: Darwinism Fails at the Cambrian Period?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2015 8:08 AM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2015 3:01 PM GMT
    It is always a good thing to raise questions and seek answers--even against the every day things we generally accept. It is still important that you point out whether you are simply doing a logical exercise versus questioning reality itself, but if you come to a conclusion, it's equally important to make sure it corresponds with reality.

    What I mean is, thanks for sharing this. I'd never heard of the John Ankerberg Show before! And 22 seconds into the video, I know why--whoever this is, if they aren't being satirical--they are among the most scientifically illiterate, uneducated and uninformed kind of religious individual, attempting to use that very topic they don't understand to try and support their belief.

    I'm only watching a few minutes--I'll have to finish watching it later--but I'm going to provide some responses as it plays.

    0:10 - "In most high schools and colleges, Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution is presented as an established fact of science, rather than as a theory."


    If there is one thing that someone can say that will clearly expose them as not understanding science, it's this. Not even understanding what the definition of the word 'theory' is. There are two definitions of Theory: the scientific definition, and the colloquial definition:
    Scientific Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
    Colloquial definition: A supposition intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

    Science does not deal in certainties. The only field in which absolute certainty can be obtained is in Mathematics, therefore Science does not employ the use of Facts, but rather, Theories, also occasionally referred to as laws. A Scientific Theory is as close to a fact as anything can be--in fact, it's better because Theories explain Facts. For further examples, I suggest looking up things like the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Plate Tectonic Theory, Cell Theory and the Theory of Relativity.

    0:20 - "But today, many leading scientists in their peer review literature, are rejecting Darwin's Theory for many reasons."

    This line is so akin to propagandist misinformation I can barely think of my own words to try and point out what actually goes on in reality, that I'm just going to link and quote Wikipedia, only because it'll be a lot quicker than me spending an hour trying to explain how %$*%!#ing stupid this is.

    Link: Wikipedia Article on Level of support for EvolutionA 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection.
    -Referenced, Pew Research Center


    But you know what, let me take a moment to go a step further, because if you're interested in reality, I want to keep your brain occupied. Even IF more than, say, 700 scientists did not accept, or rejected Evolution, not all of them are Biologists! This is a HUGE point you need to realize, no matter what side of whatever issue you're on: Scientists receive a Degree of Science, In their Field. So, in polls that survey scientists, it's very easy for, say, Engineers to be polled, who give their position on Evolution (which is not the their primary field of study), and then have the Poll say, "This Scientist agrees/disagrees!"

    Evolution deals with Biology, so if you want to know how strongly Evolution holds up, you need to ask a Biologist, not just some random scientist whose field of study may or may not even be related to the subject. An additional point of thought, a secondary majority of Scientists who are Theists (believe in god/gods), also accept Evolution. There was a survey mentioned by Nova in 2007, and published in the Washington Times that can be found here, which suggests this. It's something like 40% Support Theistic Evolution, and 55% support [Naturalistic] Evolution. Anyway, still goes to show that yes, Religion is big in science, but these are people who put their Science ahead of their Religion, when they're wearing the lab coat.

    Just to close this section (jeeze, I'm only 30 seconds in...), it's kind of worth mentioning that the evidence for Evolution is so strong, that it has been deemed, essentially, the foundation of all modern Biology, and Biochemistry. Suffice to say, Evolution is the backbone of all Bio-Sciences, and it's made of titanium. I'm trying to think of practical examples that everyone will understand, and the biggest ones I can think of are stuff like vaccinations, food cultures, house plants, selective breeding of plants/animals, development of improved crops, farming--these things would not be possible, if the theory of evolution was incorrect.

    :29 "One of the most important [reasons] being, the Cambrian Explosion of Animals; where complex, fully formed animals suddenly just appeared in the fossil record."


    ...I swear, scientific ignorance is, and I'm just gonna estimate here, 99.9999% of the reason why certain people 'reject' Evolution...

    The narrator says "suddenly". Science says the Cambrian Explosion lasted Twenty-Three Million Years (~23,000,000 years). Do I need to go on? I will anyway.

    The narrator says "complex." Evolution on Earth developed eukaryotes (complex cells), about Two Billion Years ago (~2,000,000,000 years). Do a bit of math, and that means Evolution was working and developing life for about 1,977,000,000 Years prior to the Cambrian Period. This wasn't just 'spontaneous explosion of life," this was everything being put together in the mixing bowl, and reaching its natural conclusion.

    0:44 "Why do some Scientists believe..."

    Because the less than ~1% of those Scientists, and the less than even that "less than ~1%" (because remember what I was saying about not all Scientists being Biologists?), care more about their religion than they do Science.

    0:54 "My guest today is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who received h--"

    Wait, that dude who was interviewed in that movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? AWESOME! Now that he's here, I don't need to watch this thing anymore! Woo!

    Here's a link to Expelled Exposed, and from there hopefully you'll visit a few places like Iron Chariots, and do a few more searches on your own.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Aug 10, 2015 3:40 PM GMT
    ^ Very thorough, and well articulated. Nicely done!

    You used one of my favorite examples: when I hear people dismiss biological evolution because it is "just a theory" I remind them that -- within the framework of science -- gravity is also just a theory. Then I usually ask them if they're willing to go to the tallest nearby building and test whether gravity being a theory invalidates its reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2015 3:41 PM GMT
    StephenOABC said


    There is a very small minority of "scientists" who think the Cambrian "Explosion" is a problem for evolutionary biology. As most of these skeptics are theists, that doesn't establish that there is a problem with Darwinism. It does however illustrate what religion can do to an otherwise intelligent mind.

    Yes, yes, I'm aware of what Darwin himself said about the Cambrian. That establishes absolutely nothing.

    Hey, for your next video you should post a link about how the eye is a real problem for evolutionary biology as well. I could use a good laugh.






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2015 4:23 PM GMT
    jeepguySD said[...] Then I usually ask them if they're willing to go to the tallest nearby building and test whether gravity being a theory invalidates its reality.


    Ha! Well cheers for the compliment. And I like to employ the building jumping hypothesis too, though depending on the mentality of the other person, they might take it as an ad hominem or some kind of insult/attack, which is frustrating because then they think you're attacking them instead of their idea--especially the class of religious individual whose very religion teaches them to feel as though they're persecuted. So, I don't use it very often...

    ...what I will start to use often though, is "invalidates reality", because that is a super awesome catch phrase that can be applied to so many things. I love it!

    "Yes, please continue with your hypothesis, so we can draw conclusions to see whether or not it invalidates reality!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2015 11:34 PM GMT
    Thank you, Kodiak, for stepping in. For fuck's sake, it's 2015 and we live in a supposedly first-world country where you're no longer likely to be killed for witchcraft. It's amazing how long this bullshit from so-called Intelligent Design proponents has been going on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2015 11:55 PM GMT
    http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/super-fast-evolution.html

    http://time.com/3987025/fish-evolution-trawlers/

    To be honest, it is not really that hard to see how quick evolution can take. Yes it can take tens of thousands of years.

    But consider elephant poaching.

    There are elephants with long tusks. Hunters will hunt those with longer tusks. The elephants with the shorter tusks will survive and breed elephants with shorter tusks. Over time, there will be less elephants with longer tusks.

    Over tens of years elephants "evolve".

    It's not really that hard to grasp.

    The problem is the confusion between Lamarckism and Darwinism, eurgh, hate these "-isms".

    Some people believe epigenetic changes is the basis of evolution. The better terminology is natural selection. Those who survive will breed those with very similar traits...
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Aug 11, 2015 2:14 AM GMT
    Kodiak said
    jeepguySD said[...] Then I usually ask them if they're willing to go to the tallest nearby building and test whether gravity being a theory invalidates its reality.


    Ha! Well cheers for the compliment. And I like to employ the building jumping hypothesis too, though depending on the mentality of the other person, they might take it as an ad hominem or some kind of insult/attack, which is frustrating because then they think you're attacking them instead of their idea--especially the class of religious individual whose very religion teaches them to feel as though they're persecuted. So, I don't use it very often...

    ...what I will start to use often though, is "invalidates reality", because that is a super awesome catch phrase that can be applied to so many things. I love it!

    "Yes, please continue with your hypothesis, so we can draw conclusions to see whether or not it invalidates reality!"


    You're welcome, and yes, please feel free to use "invalidates reality." No attribution necessary.

    Cheers!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 3:08 AM GMT
    Kodiak saidIt is always a good thing to raise questions and seek answers--even against the every day things we generally accept. It is still important that you point out whether you are simply doing a logical exercise versus questioning reality itself, but if you come to a conclusion, it's equally important to make sure it corresponds with reality.

    What I mean is, thanks for sharing this. I'd never heard of the John Ankerberg Show before! And 22 seconds into the video, I know why--whoever this is, if they aren't being satirical--they are among the most scientifically illiterate, uneducated and uninformed kind of religious individual, attempting to use that very topic they don't understand to try and support their belief.

    I'm only watching a few minutes--I'll have to finish watching it later--but I'm going to provide some responses as it plays.

    0:10 - "In most high schools and colleges, Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution is presented as an established fact of science, rather than as a theory."


    If there is one thing that someone can say that will clearly expose them as not understanding science, it's this. Not even understanding what the definition of the word 'theory' is. There are two definitions of Theory: the scientific definition, and the colloquial definition:
    Scientific Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
    Colloquial definition: A supposition intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

    Science does not deal in certainties. The only field in which absolute certainty can be obtained is in Mathematics, therefore Science does not employ the use of Facts, but rather, Theories, also occasionally referred to as laws. A Scientific Theory is as close to a fact as anything can be--in fact, it's better because Theories explain Facts. For further examples, I suggest looking up things like the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Plate Tectonic Theory, Cell Theory and the Theory of Relativity.

    0:20 - "But today, many leading scientists in their peer review literature, are rejecting Darwin's Theory for many reasons."

    This line is so akin to propagandist misinformation I can barely think of my own words to try and point out what actually goes on in reality, that I'm just going to link and quote Wikipedia, only because it'll be a lot quicker than me spending an hour trying to explain how %$*%!#ing stupid this is.

    Link: Wikipedia Article on Level of support for EvolutionA 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection.
    -Referenced, Pew Research Center




    Oh come on, get to the good point: Is the Cambrian Period a time when there was a bump of new species not seeming to come from an evolutionary track before them?

    Sure we can look at evolutionary patters over a human's lifespan or within a geological era.

    Here:

    Cambrian Period - 542 million years ago, most major animal phyla appeared
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 3:16 AM GMT
    Kodiak said

    Evolution deals with Biology ...


    I would say Paleobiology, but go on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 3:25 AM GMT
    Okay, here we go:

    precambrian_phylogeny2.gif

    The term “explosion” may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye. The Cambrian was preceded by many millions of years of evolution, and many of the animal phyla actually diverged during the Precambrian.

    The animals of the Cambrian did not appear out of thin air. Animal fossils from before the Cambrian have been found. Roughly 575 million years ago, a strange group of animals known as Ediacarans lived in the oceans. Although, we don’t know much about the Ediacarans, the group may have included ancestors of the lineages that we identify from the Cambrian explosion.


    In perhaps as few as 10 million years, marine animals evolved most of the basic body forms that we observe in modern groups.

    http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIB1cCambrian.shtml

    So, if the video does not admit that 10 million years is NOT too short for an EVOLUTIONARY EXPLOSION, then their argument fails.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 3:29 AM GMT
    Now, going forward, one could speak of # of species / million years and the Cambrian rate is an outlier in evolution statistics - statistically significant that something else acted as an accelerant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 3:37 AM GMT
    jeepguySD said^ Very thorough, and well articulated. Nicely done!

    You used one of my favorite examples: when I hear people dismiss biological evolution because it is "just a theory" I remind them that -- within the framework of science -- gravity is also just a theory. Then I usually ask them if they're willing to go to the tallest nearby building and test whether gravity being a theory invalidates its reality.


    Actually, not nicely done: the second authority figure in the video is a Philosopher of Biology, Paul Nelson. Philosophers of Biology are a step above scientists outside the field of biology that Kodiak levies against the case being made by the program. Yes, it is important to have philosophers of fields and to listen to them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 3:41 AM GMT
    Okay, even with the 10 million years given for evolution, there are insufficient Pre-Cambrian fossils to prove Darwinism holds true at the Pre-Cambrian to Cambrian range of geological time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 3:44 AM GMT
    Pick up at 7 min.s 46 sec.s when the video speaks of the body plans. (Evolution is not just about the skeleton and the exterior body but the internal body plan--development of organs--as well.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 2:44 PM GMT
    1285pytk saidThe problem is the confusion between Lamarckism and Darwinism, eurgh, hate these "-isms".


    I thought your entire post was great, but I think this was of key importance--we live in an age were we have the most information readily, publicly available to the layperson, but we also have laypeople who will be assaulted by waves and waves of data, without realizing where it begins or ends. And, when you aren't trained or educated in the science, those types of confusion can occur at a foundational level--and learning new data on top of a flawed foundation will create flaws in the data above it every time.

    --------------

    So we begin! I'm taking my time and being really cautious--the way your (StephenOABC's) overall response is fragmented into so many posts is a bit confusing--but certainly an efficient way of boosting a post count (not a dig at you or your post count buddy, just an observation)!

    Now:

    StephenOABC said
    Oh come on, get to the good point: Is the Cambrian Period a time when there was a bump of new species not seeming to come from an evolutionary track before them?


    No, it isn't; the Cambrian explosion as it's also known, resulved in the diergence of (modern) metazoan phyla, and accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.

    There are two key words/phrases used that make me disagree:

    1) The word "seeming" is an exceptionally vague and ambiguous phrase that would belong in an observation, not a hypothesis. If you were merely stating an observance, "it seems like this happened," I might agree, but since your purpose is to propose an alternative hypothesis, I look at your post as saying, "this thing that happened was completely unexpected, and is currently unexplainable," when it isn't--there are several hypotheses already out there that are being considered, which may explain why what happened, happened (I provide references later on in this post, when talking about 'accelerants').

    2) The phrase "evolutionary track". Through an understanding of what Evolution is, the term 'track' is both incorrect and invalid in this context.

    StephenOABC said

    I would say Paleobiology, but go on.


    I would say Biology, because Evolution is a concrete part of Biology regardless of whether it's included in as a branch in the less-than-150-year-old discipline of Paleobiology.

    But this isn't just a matter of word games, because aside from that, Evolution deals with DNA and RNA, and has its own field dedicated to it (as all scientific Theories do) called Evolutionary Biology.

    Classify it and subcatagorize it however you want, but it doesn't make Evolution any smaller--Biology is the field that deals with all life, and all living organisms, including evolution.

    For such a moot point, I should have typed less, but I want to make it clear that Evolution isn't just a line under the heading of "Evolution: It does [X]". Evolution is a scientific field of study all on its own.

    StephenOABC said
    So, if the video does not admit that 10 million years is NOT too short for an EVOLUTIONARY EXPLOSION, then their argument fails.


    Even after breaking it down and re-reading it several times, using "not" as you have is really confusing the hell out of me.

    "If the video does not admit, that, "10 million years is not too short for an evolutionary explosion"...then, their argument fails."

    So, they admit that, "10 million years is not too short for an evolutionary explosion," and thus their argument does not fail.

    If that's what you meant by what you typed...then yes, I agree! It does not mean their argument fails! Every honest scientist, skeptic, rational, logical, critical thinker leaves margins for the unknown, true.

    Evolution is known however, and is fact and theory combined (the Theory is the explanation of the Fact), therefore I fail to see what your point is. Would it have been more dishonest of them to have said, "10 Million years is too short for an evolutionary explosion!" Yes, it would be, but they didn't say it so...

    ...why bring it up? Did you type that as a question? A statement? I don't understaaaaaand.

    StephenOABC said
    Now, going forward, one could speak of [number] of species / million years and the Cambrian rate is an outlier in evolution statistics - statistically significant that something else acted as an accelerant.


    Sure. We don't claim to know what we don't know--if we're uncertain of something, but know the result, we can say "something" acted as [something], which is why we have [what we have].

    As for what might have 'acted as an accelerant', there are several hypothesis that are being considered. So! I'm still not sure what you're trying to point out, sadly.


    [Continued, apparently]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 2:45 PM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    Actually, not nicely done: the second authority figure in the video is a Philosopher of Biology, Paul Nelson. Philosophers of Biology are a step above scientists outside the field of biology that Kodiak levies against the case being made by the program. Yes, it is important to have philosophers of fields and to listen to them.


    1) I thought it was nicely done, and I did it all in one, single, structured post.

    2) The authority figure, are you @#$*#% insane?!?!

    ...just kidding, I wouldn't use that kind of hyperbole. And since I don't use hyperbole, understand that I am fully aware of every word I type, when I say that there is no way in hell I'm going to bow down to an argument from authority--even if it wasn't a logical fallacy--when that so-called authority is a un-scientific, potentially-dishonest, Biblically literalist, Christian apologetic who believes the world is less than 10,000 years old--and you want us to listen to him?

    Okay! So, I listened to him. And, I've listened to others like him. But for the same reason we don't "teach the controversy" alongside teaching the facts, or "the moon landings were faked" alongside teaching about the actual moon landings, or teaching '9/11 was a conspiracy' alongside actual history...we especially don't take seriously in any capacity the words of someone who is a fellow of the Discovery Institute of all things, a notoriously singularly, monotheistic religiously motivated and biased group.

    And we do realize that the so called authority's very own young creationist views aren't just in opposite to the entirety of most (if not all) scientific findings, but are even unpopular with many other intelligent design advocates?

    But again, I listened. I took the time to do so, as I always try to do, and I remain unimpressed. His ideas are not new, and they are not exciting. They are old--very, very old ideas, attempting to wrap themselves around new evidence--but they are unable to do so, and the gaps are showing. Young Earth Creationism especially was abandoned at the start of the 19th century, dismissed as nothing more than a religious claim, with no substance or support from the majority of scientific findings.

    3) I already mentioned this in 2, but it's an argument from authority. I don't care of Nelson is telling the truth, he doesn't have the evidence to back up his hypotheses. The time to belive something is when the evidence supports it, and the evidence does not support his position(s).

    4) The very concept of "Authorities" in science is a dangerous thing to set forth. Though there are people who are obviously more academically qualified to speak on particular subjects today, there were also "scientific authorities" a hundred and fifty years ago, which the scientific establishment, and the process itself, worked to separate. Why separate the concept of human authorities in science? Because humans can be biased.

    Evidence can be biased as well, but in the majority of cases, evidence is heavily biased in favor of reality.

    Also, the reason I said 150 years ago is because, staying on topic, I wanted to refer to the connection between Charles Darwin and Sir Richard Owen, which is a bit of a long tale that I don't have time or patience to type out. The moral of the story is there is a huge risk involved in appealing to authorities, and it becomes a logical fallacy when one appeals to someone who is not actually an authority at all--regardless of whether they're a certified Philosopher or not. Another moral: honest science leads to honest findings. Or something.

    Note: Highly recommend AronRa's Foundational Falsehood(s) of Creationism series. Click here to watch Part 12, which covers the relevant story of Darwin and Owen, from AronRa's perspective.

    StephenOABC said
    Okay, even with the 10 million years given for evolution, there are insufficient Pre-Cambrian fossils to prove Darwinism holds true at the Pre-Cambrian to Cambrian range of geological time.


    Too much time and I've typed 10,000 characters. DNA evidence alone is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of Evolution. Fossils need not apply. For more information, you can listen to Richard Dawkins' lecture, "What Is the Evidence for Evolution Found in the Fossil Record?" Next point.

    StephenOABC said
    Pick up at 7 min.s 46 sec.s when the video speaks of the body plans. (Evolution is not just about the skeleton and the exterior body but the internal body plan--development of organs--as well.)


    Yes, Evolution occurs at the DNA level.


    Alright! Woo! All done for now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 3:03 PM GMT
    StephenOABC saidScience v. Religion: Darwinism Fails at the Cambrian Period?
    I don't know enough about the theory of evolution to agree or disagree with that, but I do know enough about religion to know that it fails way more often than Darwin ever did when the scientific method is applied to it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2015 8:53 AM GMT
    StephenOABC saidPick up at 7 min.s 46 sec.s when the video speaks of the body plans. (Evolution is not just about the skeleton and the exterior body but the internal body plan--development of organs--as well.)


    Continued to 13 min.s 17 seconds.
    As a result, I gave the video a thumbs up.

    7:46 to 13:17 speaks of Anatomy and Body Plan (they do not go into evolution of body organs)

    Chordates are different from Arthopods

    Chordate - outside body is soft, hard skeleton on inside
    Arthropod - outside body is hard, inside body is soft
    Echinoderms - sea urchins and star fish

    When we move from the tree of life pattern of hominid evolution, when we leave say the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo to a much broader view of life on Earth to Chordates, Arthropods, and Echinoderms which cannot be diagrammed into a tree of life, then we see the challenges to Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution.

    It's a good video that zooms out from paleontologists and paleobiologists tell us about our genus (Homo); our perspective zooms out to a much larger world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    StephenOABC saidPick up at 7 min.s 46 sec.s when the video speaks of the body plans. (Evolution is not just about the skeleton and the exterior body but the internal body plan--development of organs--as well.)
    7:46 to 13:17 speaks of Anatomy and Body Plan (they do not go into evolution of body organs)

    Chordates are different from Arthopods

    Chordate - outside body is soft, hard skeleton on inside
    Arthropod - outside body is hard, inside body is soft
    Echinoderms - sea urchins and star fish

    When we move from the tree of life pattern of hominid evolution, when we leave say the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo to a much broader view of life on Earth to Chordates, Arthropods, and Echinoderms which cannot be diagrammed into a tree of life, then we see the challenges to Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution.

    It's a good video that zooms out from paleontologists and paleobiologists tell us about our genus (Homo); our perspective zooms out to a much larger world.


    And I disagree: I think it's a bad video, full of non-science, provided by non-scientists, who are employing non-scientific means of evaluating the evidence--the very evidence of which is flawed from the start. And, I've explained why I think that, both in the gargantuan posts I made above, and a bit more about why here:

    In those huge ass posts I made above, I specifically point at fossil evidence, and provide a link to a lecture that fairly clearly demonstrates why fossil evidence is nearly irrelevant. Despite the hundreds or thousands of fossils we have obtained, they in no way even complete a single percent of a documentation of all the species that have ever existed.

    Do you realize how amazingly lucky we are to even have fossils in the first place??? Of course the fossil record is incomplete--of course we don't have complete fossil evidence for certain eras, or periods in time. That kind of documentation is highly unlikely to ever be completed.

    So, again, we look at what complete evidence we do have--the strongest evidence: DNA. Why? Guess what, those Chordates, Arthropods, and Echinoderms all have DNA, and by analyzing that DNA, we can see distinct similarities between species.

    I'm gonna point you to a resource that pretty darn clearly tears apart those intelligent design ideas. I hate leaning on a single resource to do that, but since it's so darn good, I highly encourage you to watch AronRa's, The 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism. It talks about the very subject of anatomy, and Chordates and all those other points brought up and clearly addresses them.

    As a final note, again tackling the subject of these 'authorities'--intelligent design denies the fact that mutation and natural selection can explain the evolution of chordates from echinoderms, simply because intelligent design proponents don't understand the sheer amazing diversity of living organisms. When you decide to accept the intelligent design argument, you are put in a position where you have to say: "I am convinced that Intelligent Design is the only way this could have happened." And once you do that, you are forced into a position where you are leading the evidence to your conclusion that Intelligent Design is correct.

    Evolutionists do not, and should not, do that in the least. Darwin asked the question, "what is this and why," and he labeled it evolution. From there, he continued to build upon it, letting the evidence guide him. The label stuck, but the evidence grew.

    Intelligent Design is saying, "I see what this is, and I assume this is why," and then going out and finding only the evidence that supports the case for Intelligent Design.

    Please--please watch the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. Please also remember Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing.

    Please read this article from the US National Library of Medicine, covering Creationism/Intelligence Design which addresses many aspects of pseudoscience--which is what Creationism is.

    And while you're at it...please read those two huge ass posts I wrote above! Don't just ignore it, or pretend their content didn't address your points! If you want to continue sharing your thoughts on Intelligent Design, please be honest enough to address the evidence counter to it!
  • Crisistunity

    Posts: 109

    Aug 12, 2015 7:40 PM GMT
    Not every individual ends up fossilized and discovered by a human being millions of years later.
    It is a bit more complicated, otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense that we hadn't got to see Jesus' body (from only 2 000 years ago) yet, would it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2015 1:18 AM GMT
    Crisistunity saidNot every individual ends up fossilized and discovered by a human being millions of years later.
    It is a bit more complicated, otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense that we hadn't got to see Jesus' body (from only 2 000 years ago) yet, would it?


    The reason we have not gotten to see Jesus' body is because Jesus was more than one person. Below is more than 11 years of research into The Composite Jesus Approach to the Historical Jesus.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2015 12:48 PM GMT
    Kodiak:

    Please--please watch the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. Please also remember Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing.

    Stephenoabc:

    A while back I read about eukaryoates and concluded evolution does not hold at the origin of life. Way before I was a member of real jock is when this happened. When I lived in NYC I could frequent the American Museum of Natural History. There were all sorts of books there. The Perot Museum of Nature and Science I have never visited and I have been in this area since, let's say Feb. 1, 2009.

    So, when I was unpacking my library, I made a decision of which books to give away, leave in boxes, and have accessible.

    I think the name of the book was Origins of Life with a black cover.

    Anyway, here:

    Eukaryotes are more closely related to Archaea than Bacteria, at least in terms of nuclear DNA and genetic machinery, and one controversial idea is to place them with Archaea in the clade Neomura. However, in other respects, such as membrane composition, eukaryotes are similar to Bacteria. Three main explanations for this have been proposed:

    Eukaryotes resulted from the complete fusion of two or more cells, wherein the cytoplasm formed from a eubacterium, and the nucleus from an archaeon,[66] from a virus,[67][68] or from a pre-cell.[69][70]
    Eukaryotes developed from Archaea, and acquired their eubacterial characteristics from the proto-mitochondrion.
    Eukaryotes and Archaea developed separately from a modified eubacterium.

    The chronocyte hypothesis for the origin of the eukaryotic cell postulates that a primitive eukaryotic cell was formed by the endosymbiosis of both archaea and bacteria by a third type of cell, termed a chronocyte.

    So, biology is not conclusive about the origins of Eukaryotes. Darwinism is not conclusive about the origins of Eukaryotes.

    # # #

    Second, Evolution on Earth is NOT the same thing as "evolution" from a singularity.

    This relates to my earlier point that unlike hominid evolution, when we zoom out and cover more life forms, we are not going to find Darwinism explaining as competently every appearance of life forms.

    # # #

    Third, the Earth did not form from a singularity. In fact, the origins of life have an interplanetary component (planetary impacts with debris from other bodies of the solar system, impacts to Earth carrying life).

    The exact origin of our planet's water, which covers about 70 percent of Earth's surface, is still a mystery to scientists. Many researchers think that, instead of water forming at the same time as Earth, objects in the outer solar system delivered water to Earth in violent collisions shortly after its formation.

    http://www.livescience.com/33391-where-did-water-come-from.html

    # # #

    So, you are in error when you imply that if someone does not accept Darwinism/Evolution, the only alternative is Creationism and Intelligent Design.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2015 12:52 PM GMT
    Furthermore, back to the topic which is the Cambrian period and not the inconclusive origins of Eukaryoates, I would like to see some really good literature (akin to the quality of literature on hominids going back to prosimians) that explains the common ancestors of the three forms of life we mentioned earlier (1 soft outer body hard inner body, 2) hard outer body, soft inner body, 3) star fish, etc.).