Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/how_sudden_was_074511.html

"How "Sudden" Was the Cambrian Explosion? "

"Instead, he equates the Cambrian explosion with the most explosive period of the Cambrian radiation (as most Cambrian experts do) in which the vast majority of the higher taxa arose. He asserts specifically that the re-dating of critical Cambrian strata in 1993 established that the strata documenting the first appearance of the majority of the Cambrian phyla and classes took place within a 10 million year period -- a period Meyer does equate with "the explosion of novel Cambrian animal forms." (pp. 71-72) As he describes it, "these studies [i.e., radiometric analyses of zircon crystals in Siberian rocks] also suggested that the explosion of novel Cambrian animal forms" took about 10 million years. (p. 71)"

"An analysis by MIT geochronologist Samuel Bowring has shown that the main pulse of Cambrian morphological innovation occurred in a sedimentary sequence spanning no more than 6 million years. Yet during this time representatives of at least sixteen completely novel phyla and about thirty classes first appeared in the rock record. In a more recent paper using a slightly different dating scheme, Douglas Erwin and colleagues similarly show that thirteen new phyla appear in a roughly 6-million-year window. (p. 73)"


Read it all for yourself, but allowing for dating errors, it was simultaneous.

Are you not agreeing then that a period of at least some millions of years was involved, which means that there is no reason to jump to any conclusion that anything happened spontaneously or miraculously.

Clearly there is every reason to suppose that if new niches existed at the time that hard bodies were being developed for the first time for both attack and defence then many new lines of evolution would have been going on simultaneously, free from any existing and probably more effective opposition.

This isn't about creation, it's about evolution, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you not agreeing then that a period of at least some millions of years was involved, which means that there is no reason to jump to any conclusion that anything happened spontaneously or miraculously.

Clearly there is every reason to suppose that if new niches existed at the time that hard bodies were being developed for the first time for both attack and defence then many new lines of evolution would have been going on simultaneously, free from any existing and probably more effective opposition.

This isn't about creation, it's about evolution, right?

I guess he's saying that the "proof of creation" is that it took God 6-10 million years to get things rolling. You also have to wonder what God did with the pre-Cambrian organisms...did he kill them and replace them with the new stuff?

 

[gcthomas]

But the alleles were there to start with, so sorry not evolution.

And no new species either.

But your thinking that a change in allele frequency in a population IS evolution shows that you were asleep the day they taught evolution at your school.

Evolution involves changing the allele frequencies through natural selection and genetic drift. How long the generic variation has been in the population is moot, since evolution often occurs when the selection pressures change, not when a mutation happens.

 

[alwight]

Brown moths on sooty backgrounds, because they were better camouflaged.

Look around at all the dogs on earth today. They came from those 2 which came off the Ark. Every animal contains inherent variability. Isolated finches will get slightly specialised beaks as Darwin discovered. That's not proof of evolution.

Sorry but you have the wrong moth.

Darwin's Moth Prediction

 

[iouae]

Are you not agreeing then that a period of at least some millions of years was involved, which means that there is no reason to jump to any conclusion that anything happened spontaneously or miraculously.

Clearly there is every reason to suppose that if new niches existed at the time that hard bodies were being developed for the first time for both attack and defence then many new lines of evolution would have been going on simultaneously, free from any existing and probably more effective opposition.

This isn't about creation, it's about evolution, right?

6 million years is within the scope of statistical error or simultaneous.

The propaganda from Evolution Central is that if there are new niches then this encourages evolution. Now think for yourself. During the whole Pre-cambrian there were open niches. So why did evolution wait for "On your marks, set, GO!" in the Cambrian?

 

[iouae]

Sorry but you have the wrong moth.

Darwin's Moth Prediction

Sorry but I don't have the plug in to play your clip. A URL will help.

 

[iouae]

Evolution involves changing the allele frequencies through natural selection and genetic drift. How long the generic variation has been in the population is moot, since evolution often occurs when the selection pressures change, not when a mutation happens.

Tell me how change in allele frequency which say favours brown moths is evolution? That is why I say y'all missed the memo.

You need a new mutation to produce something new.

 

[Jose Fly]

6 million years is within the scope of statistical error or simultaneous.

You heard it here first folks....6 million years is "simultaneous". :chuckle:

The propaganda from Evolution Central is that if there are new niches then this encourages evolution. Now think for yourself. During the whole Pre-cambrian there were open niches. So why did evolution wait for "On your marks, set, GO!" in the Cambrian?

Ah, so you really haven't studied this subject much, and most certainly haven't read Valentine's 2013 book that covers most of the science.

Figured.

 

[iouae]

I guess he's saying that the "proof of creation" is that it took God 6-10 million years to get things rolling. You also have to wonder what God did with the pre-Cambrian organisms...did he kill them and replace them with the new stuff?

No, the Pre-cambrian algae were doing a good job producing oxygen. The oxygen levels continued increasing till they were at their highest I believe during the Eocene.

 

[iouae]

You heard it here first folks....6 million years is "simultaneous". :chuckle:



Ah, so you really haven't studied this subject much, and most certainly haven't read Valentine's 2013 book that covers most of the science.

Figured.

So you read one book. Yay!!

 

[Jose Fly]

No, the Pre-cambrian algae were doing a good job producing oxygen.

And you think that's all that was around pre-Cambrian?

So you read one book. Yay!!

What scientific work on the evolution of Cambrian life have you read?

 

[alwight]

Sorry but I don't have the plug in to play your clip. A URL will help.

Wiki OK for you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgani

 

[iouae]

You heard it here first folks....6 million years is "simultaneous". :chuckle:

Explain to me the significance of this...


"An analysis by MIT geochronologist Samuel Bowring has shown that the main pulse of Cambrian morphological innovation occurred in a sedimentary sequence spanning no more than 6 million years. Yet during this time representatives of at least sixteen completely novel phyla and about thirty classes first appeared in the rock record. In a more recent paper using a slightly different dating scheme, Douglas Erwin and colleagues similarly show that thirteen new phyla appear in a roughly 6-million-year window. (p. 73)"

I want to see if you are so closed minded that you cannot see how important and amazing the above is.

 

[iouae]

Wiki OK for you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgani

Such examples of mutualism we Creationists use to prove that whole biomes get created together, since the flower needs its pollinating agent. So no credit for that prediction. Every flower needs its pollinator - even a child could predict that.

Any better predictions?

 

[Jose Fly]

Explain to me the significance of this...

It's an excerpt from a creationist book.

I want to see if you are so closed minded that you cannot see how important and amazing the above is.

Um....ok. Have you actually read the material your creationist sources are citing?

 

[iouae]

And you think that's all that was around pre-Cambrian?



What scientific work on the evolution of Cambrian life have you read?

Wiki

 

[iouae]

It's an excerpt from a creationist book.



Um....ok. Have you actually read the material your creationist sources are citing?

Sorry, I will sit this dance around the question out.
You explain why you feel its significant. Or don't.

 

[alwight]

6 million years is within the scope of statistical error or simultaneous.

The propaganda from Evolution Central is that if there are new niches then this encourages evolution. Now think for yourself. During the whole Pre-cambrian there were open niches. So why did evolution wait for "On your marks, set, GO!" in the Cambrian?

6 million years is hardly spontaneous creation, will you not at least admit that?
I've previously explained that there are many good arguments, if not one definitive one, as to why life evolved more rapidly back then, so perhaps you might check my previous posts since I don't intend to write it up again.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wiki

So your knowledge of the history of the Cambrian comes from Wiki. Good to know.

Sorry, I will sit this dance around the question out.
You explain why you feel its significant. Or don't.

I don't know what you think is "significant" about an excerpt from a creationist book. If you're expecting me to think such a thing is "significant", you're going to be disappointed.

 

[iouae]

6 million years is hardly spontaneous creation, will you not at least admit that?
I've previously explained that there are many good arguments, if not one definitive one, as to why life evolved more rapidly back then, so perhaps you might check my previous posts since I don't intend to write it up again.

I did see your name come up 2 years ago while checking out the evolution of this thread. I was wondering if every argument had already been made, and all one had to do was point to past posts.