Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

Perhaps you are just a little bit too keen to come the conclusion that a naturalistic answer is impossible?

Let's revise.

Most Phyla arrive "instantly" in earliest rock.

Evolution or creation???????

T.O.L shows most Phyla spread from top to bottom like this was evolutionary progression. Yet all occur "instantly".

Who is in denial?

 

[iouae]

No. But other scientists do, and they apparently have. Also, this may come as a shock to you, but Richard Dawkins isn't the foremost expert of evolutionary theory out there. He's not even really that high up there, so his one dissenting opinion (assuming you're not misrepresenting his quote) isn't going to change the consensus of the scientific community. You're just familiar with him because he's the most overly zealous atheist alive.

Give me a link to the Dawkins quote, please. I'd like to check the date on it and its surrounding context

http://europe.newsweek.com/excerpt-richard-dawkinss-new-book-evolution-79345?rm=eu

 

[Greg Jennings]

Let's revise.

Most Phyla arrive "instantly" in earliest rock.

Evolution or creation???????

T.O.L shows most Phyla spread from top to bottom like this was evolutionary progression. Yet all occur "instantly".

Who is in denial?

Are you sure you know what a phylum is? Becayse they certainly didn't all appear in the earliest rock, or in Cambrian layers. Here is yet another credible source that'll tell you just that: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html

And even for the phyla that are represented in the Cambrian, there are no modern species found. For example, there are Echinodermata found there, but they don't resemble the sea stars, sea urchins, and so on that we see today

 

[iouae]

Dawkins doesn't suggest that all those phyla arrived at the same time.

You have read the book?

This does...
http://prehistoricearth.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Cambrian_biota_by_phylum

 

[Greg Jennings]

http://europe.newsweek.com/excerpt-richard-dawkinss-new-book-evolution-79345?rm=eu

Thank you

"Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found." - 2009

Dawkins notes that some trace fossils have been found, and some new discoveries have been made since this article was published over 6 years ago.


I think you're having trouble with the "explosion of life" after the massive extinction event that occurred then happened only due to said extinction event. When large percentages of life are wiped out, it means that their ecological niche is now open to being filled by a new animal. The animals that survived the extinction event were able to rapidly multiply and diversify because there were so many empty niches, and likely a lack of predators

 

[iouae]

Are you sure you know what a phylum is? Becayse they certainly didn't all appear in the earliest rock, or in Cambrian layers. Here is yet another credible source that'll tell you just that: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html

And even for the phyla that are represented in the Cambrian, there are no modern species found. For example, there are Echinodermata found there, but they don't resemble the sea stars, sea urchins, and so on that we see today

Did you read the first sentence?
"Almost every metazoan phylum with hard parts, and many that lack hard parts, made its first appearance in the Cambrian"

This says the Phyla were there.

The animals changed. The pattern remained.
Do you know how significant that is?

Did you study Biology?

Do you know how hard it would be to design, let alone by random chance come up with so many successful body types all at once. Such that almost no new body types arose after that till today?

 

[iouae]

Thank you

"Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found." - 2009

Dawkins notes that some trace fossils have been found, and some new discoveries have been made since this article was published over 6 years ago.

Do you know what "ambiguous" means?

I really don't care whether there were flatworms or not.

Trilobites are bilaterally symmetrical, with a hugely more complicated internal structure than flatworms.

 

[Jonahdog]

Did you read the first sentence?
"Almost every metazoan phylum with hard parts, and many that lack hard parts, made its first appearance in the Cambrian"

This says the Phyla were there.

The animals changed. The pattern remained.
Do you know how significant that is?

Did you study Biology?

Do you know how hard it would be to design, let alone by random chance come up with so many successful body types all at once. Such that almost no new body types arose after that till today?

Please cut to the chase. Who is the designer?

 

[iouae]

It's only evolution which says we have to go through the flatworm stage of going from radial symmetry (Coelenterata) to bilateral symmetry (flatworms).

Why would I care if they left out ten steps? I don't believe there were steps since they were created, by my reading of their simultaneous arrival.

 

[iouae]

Please cut to the chase. Who is the designer?

Dog - if you are dyslexic.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Did you read the first sentence?
"Almost every metazoan phylum with hard parts, and many that lack hard parts, made its first appearance in the Cambrian"

This says the Phyla were there.

The animals changed. The pattern remained.
Do you know how significant that is?

You claimed that all phyla originated not just then, but in the very earliest rock layers. Perhaps you meant differently, but I can only comment on what I see you type.

Did you study Biology?

Do you know how hard it would be to design, let alone by random chance come up with so many successful body types all at once. Such that almost no new body types arose after that till today?

Yes I did. And it's because of that that I know how incorrect your statement above is. I'm going to try and explain it to you with the hope that you'll look at it with an open mind.

Creatures don't need to be designed. Random chance does the trick because this is how evolution works:
Mutations happen. Most are neutral, some are bad, and some are good. That's random. But this isn't: Bad mutations are eliminated from the population due to the fact that individuals that have them are less fit than their buddies, and therefore die younger and reproduce less, which means that this bad mutation is unlikely to be passed on for more than a couple of generations. Neutral mutations have no effect on fitness, but good mutations have a positive impact. They increase the fitness of an individual, and therefore these individuals are more likely to live longer lives and have more offspring, which will also be more fit if they inherit the mutation and pass it on to their offspring, and so on until the entire population has this good mutation as part of their genome.

So mutation is random. Natural selection is not: positive mutations are selected for, and negative mutations are selected against.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Do you know what "ambiguous" means?

I really don't care whether there were flatworms or not.

Trilobites are bilaterally symmetrical, with a hugely more complicated internal structure than flatworms.

You said he claimed there were none. That's not what he said.

What is your point about trilobite symmetry? They are supposed to have come after flatworms, which is what that would suggest

 

[Jonahdog]

Dog - if you are dyslexic.

Yeah, but I can learn how to deal with that.

I'm sorry, but isn't your whole gig about the designer for the Cambrian explosion? So who is it? Aliens? Steven Spielberg? The Genesis Creator god?
Put us all out of our misery, please.

 

[iouae]

You claimed that all phyla originated not just then, but in the very earliest rock layers. Perhaps you meant differently, but I can only comment on what I see you type.


Yes I did. And it's because of that that I know how incorrect your statement above is. I'm going to try and explain it to you with the hope that you'll look at it with an open mind.

Creatures don't need to be designed. Random chance does the trick because this is how evolution works:
Mutations happen. Most are neutral, some are bad, and some are good. That's random. But this isn't: Bad mutations are eliminated from the population due to the fact that individuals that have them are less fit than their buddies, and therefore die younger and reproduce less, which means that this bad mutation is unlikely to be passed on for more than a couple of generations. Neutral mutations have no effect on fitness, but good mutations have a positive impact. They increase the fitness of an individual, and therefore these individuals are more likely to live longer lives and have more offspring, which will also be more fit if they inherit the mutation and pass it on to their offspring, and so on until the entire population has this good mutation as part of their genome.

So mutation is random. Natural selection is not: positive mutations are selected for, and negative mutations are selected against.

And it all takes time. That's not what I say. Evolution's friend is time and the belief that with enough time all things are possible.

There was no time. They appear as if the curtain went up to reveal them all there.

Why do you say they all were not there in the earliest layers? Proof please. I read Trilobites were, and they were the most complicated, apart from Cordata. They too might have been lowest layer.

You are going against what evolution itself teaches, viz. that it is a slow process of trial and error. This was not trial and error.
BTW there are no "missing links" mixed with all the animals. They are all there and distinct. Explain that.

 

[iouae]

Yeah, but I can learn how to deal with that.

I'm sorry, but isn't your whole gig about the designer for the Cambrian explosion? So who is it? Aliens? Steven Spielberg? The Genesis Creator god?
Put us all out of our misery, please.

God almighty, YHWH, El Shaddai, Jesus, Jehovah, LORD God, y'know the Bible's God.

 

[Jonahdog]

And it all takes time. That's not what I say. Evolution's friend is time and the belief that with enough time all things are possible.

There was no time. They appear as if the curtain went up to reveal them all there.

Why do you say they all were not there in the earliest layers? Proof please. I read Trilobites were, and they were the most complicated, apart from Cordata. They too might have been lowest layer.

You are going against what evolution itself teaches, viz. that it is a slow process of trial and error. This was not trial and error.
BTW there are no "missing links" mixed with all the animals. They are all there and distinct. Explain that.

The Cambrian Explosion was instantaneous? Citation please.
and trust me, any dyslexia you have diagnosed can be dealt with.
And what a diagnostician you are---dyslexia from TOL?

And thanks for letting me know the name of the designer.

So I take it you dont really go for the literal Genesis reading?

 

[iouae]

The Cambrian Explosion was instantaneous? Citation please.
and trust me, any dyslexia you have diagnosed can be dealt with.
And what a diagnostician you are---dyslexia from TOL?

And thanks for letting me know the name of the designer.

So I take it you dont really go for the literal Genesis reading?

You will just have to call my bluff on the first one by doing your own research.

And there is a big gap of 13.8 billion years between "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "And the earth BECAME without form and void" because of a mass extinction.

Its the YEC who are dyslexic and can't see the gap.

 

[alwight]

Let's revise.

Most Phyla arrive "instantly" in earliest rock.

Evolution or creation???????

T.O.L shows most Phyla spread from top to bottom like this was evolutionary progression. Yet all occur "instantly".

Who is in denial?

You seen to be in denial of the physical realities involved here. All fossils are "instantaneous" examples, yet you seem to think that there should be a blow by blow account of every stage of development waiting to be found in the geology, but any fossils are in fact rare and can only be a snapshot.

Btw if you read that link to the Dawkins excerpt I think that you have misrepresented him on flatworms. As I understand him he is saying that flatworms according to creationists would have been created along with everything else, but the reason that he can find no fossil record of them is only because they simply don't fossilise and therefore creationists must therefore also accept that some things fossilise well and other things don't, it doesn't mean that he thinks they didn't exist.

 

[Greg Jennings]

And it all takes time. That's not what I say. Evolution's friend is time and the belief that with enough time all things are possible.

There was no time. They appear as if the curtain went up to reveal them all there.

There was 20 million years of time. That's plenty

Why do you say they all were not there in the earliest layers? Proof please. I read Trilobites were, and they were the most complicated, apart from Cordata. They too might have been lowest layer.

Read the source I last gave you. It's on this page

You are going against what evolution itself teaches, viz. that it is a slow process of trial and error. This was not trial and error.

Yes it was. 20 million years of slow trial and error.

BTW there are no "missing links" mixed with all the animals. They are all there and distinct. Explain that.

Umm....yeah there are transitional stages seen. For example, we see boneless fish develop into armored, bony fish

 

[Greg Jennings]

God almighty, YHWH, El Shaddai, Jesus, Jehovah, LORD God, y'know the Bible's God.

Why couldn't it be Shiva? Or Osiris? Or, since some Christians here seem to think he isn't the same as God, how about Allah?

Where is your empirical evidence that the Christian God is the creator?



My response to your other post is the last one on the previous page