Sudden appearance of phyla in the Cambrian explosion

[Aineo]

"When Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species " in 1859, the sudden appearance of animal fossils at the beginning of the Cambrian was of particular concern to him. It was at odds with his view that the diversification of life on earth through natural selection had required a long period of time. Darwin's theory predicted that the major groups of animals should gradually diverge during evolution. He knew that the sudden appearance of fossils would be used by his opponents as a powerful argument against his theories of descent with modification and natural selection. Consequently, he argued that a long period of time, unrepresented in the fossil record, must have preceded the Cambrian to allow the various major groups of animals to diverge. At that time the strata that we now regard as Cambrian were subsumed within the concept of the Silurian, so Darwin wrote,
'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained'
The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313 - 314
· Derek E.G. Briggs, Douglas H. Erwin, & Frederick J. Collier
"The Fossils of the Burgess Shale," 1994, Smithsonian Institution, p.39.
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/ori ... brian.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html

Where are the fossils that show an evolutionary flow of phyla from the 3 pre-Cambrian animal phyla to the 35 current phyla? Slow and gradual evolution through natural selection and adaptation is not demonstrated in the explosion of 32 phyla in 5 million years. Which by the way brings up the question of how many generations does it take for a phylum to evolve from another phylum?

[Green]

Evolutionary change is never constant in pace, and "gradual" is a relative term for the evolution of organisms over tens of millions of years.

The idea that arthropods and annelids and onychophorans all evolved in the Cambrian is complicated by the observation of fossil tracks showing that something multilegged was crawling around in the Precambrian. Either it was one of those, or else there were more phyla that evolved earlier.

" Trace fossils of burrows and tracks are perhaps the best evidence for the existence of animals ancestral to modern forms in the Precambrian. Unlike the various fossils represented in the Vendian impressions, these animals would have possessed the key characteristic of most animals - mobility. Unfortunately there are no known fossils of these organisms themselves, so we can't know who made these tracks and burrows."
http://www.humboldt.edu/~natmus/lifeThr ... reCam.web/

Either way, it sort of spread out the "explosion" to something more like a deflagration. Not to say that the appearance of completely scleretized exoskeletons (which marks the beginning of the Cambrian) didn't result in a rapid evolutionary radiation. It did. But most of the modern body plans are missing from the Cambrian. No sharks, no octopi, no mammals, no birds, reptiles, or amphibians, no insects or spiders. No vascular plants or any land animals whatever.

All that evolved in subsequent ages.

[Evilutionist]

Where are the fossils that show an evolutionary flow of phyla from the 3 pre-Cambrian animal phyla to the 35 current phyla? Slow and gradual evolution through natural selection and adaptation is not demonstrated in the explosion of 32 phyla in 5 million years. Which by the way brings up the question of how many generations does it take for a phylum to evolve from another phylum?

A quick question. You've rejected out of hand any evidence brought forth regarding what you would probably call 'macro-evolution'. That's fine and I am not going to argue with you at this point. However, in the interest of moving the discussion forward, could you elaborate on the evidence you WOULD accept for macroevolution if we could provide it? Unless we know this, I fear we could talk past each other for days and weeks if not years.

-E

[Aineo]

A quick question. You've rejected out of hand any evidence brought forth regarding what you would probably call 'macro-evolution'. That's fine and I am not going to argue with you at this point. However, in the interest of moving the discussion forward, could you elaborate on the evidence you WOULD accept for macroevolution if we could provide it? Unless we know this, I fear we could talk past each other for days and weeks if not years.

-E

The same evidence used to show the evolution of whales. Appealing to "burrows" is far from evidence to show that all the phyla existed pre-Cambrian.

[Evilutionist]

A quick question. You've rejected out of hand any evidence brought forth regarding what you would probably call 'macro-evolution'. That's fine and I am not going to argue with you at this point. However, in the interest of moving the discussion forward, could you elaborate on the evidence you WOULD accept for macroevolution if we could provide it? Unless we know this, I fear we could talk past each other for days and weeks if not years.

-E

The same evidence used to show the evolution of whales. Appealing to "burrows" is far from evidence to show that all the phyla existed pre-Cambrian.

Ok, but I thought you did not find the evolution of whale evidence compelling (or did I miss where you accepted that)?

-E

[Aineo]

Ok, but I thought you did not find the evolution of whale evidence compelling (or did I miss where you accepted that)?

-E

Don't play the fool, I have posted many times I do not deny evolution within species, genera, and family groups. Where fossil evidence is not played with by those who would see a land dwelling mammal becoming a totally aquatic mammal we don't have anything to disagree about.

[runner]

Ok, but I thought you did not find the evolution of whale evidence compelling (or did I miss where you accepted that)?

-E

Don't play the fool, I have posted many times I do not deny evolution within species, genera, and family groups. Where fossil evidence is not played with by those who would see a land dwelling mammal becoming a totally aquatic mammal we don't have anything to disagree about.

I can understand your frustration. The point is that your model which you presented earlier, sketchy as it was, does not explain things such as Precambrian metazoans or the progression of whale fossils.

[Aineo]

I can understand your frustration. The point is that your model which you presented earlier, sketchy as it was, does not explain things such as Precambrian metazoans or the progression of whale fossils.

We are not discussing my model, we are discussing the fact that 32 out of 35 phyla suddenly (in evolutionary terms) appeared without any transition fossils to explain them. Even the whale example, which some have taken as a terrestial mammal becoming an aquatic mammal is founded on assumptions by the use of only a skull.

[Evilutionist]

Ok, but I thought you did not find the evolution of whale evidence compelling (or did I miss where you accepted that)?

-E

Don't play the fool, I have posted many times I do not deny evolution within species, genera, and family groups. Where fossil evidence is not played with by those who would see a land dwelling mammal becoming a totally aquatic mammal we don't have anything to disagree about.

I'm not playing the fool, but your answer did not make sense because I thought you did not accept the whale transition. I see now that you do accept the evidence. So, I'll move on to the next question. If you accept that a whale developed from a land-dwelling animal, then what limits changes?

-E

[Aineo]

I'm not playing the fool, but your answer did not make sense because I thought you did not accept the whale transition. I see now that you do accept the evidence. So, I'll move on to the next question. If you accept that a whale developed from a land-dwelling animal, then what limits changes?

-E

Actually you must be playing the fool, there is no evidence a land dwelling animal evolved into a whale. Pakicetus is known only by its skull and is used as proof that a land dwelling animal evolved into an aquatic animal based on assumptions, not the fossil evidence.

[Green]

The first find was just a skull. Imagine the surprise of investigators, when they turned up the next skull of this whale, and found fully functional legs.

Here's the bones found of Pakicetus, and a smaller species, Icthyolestes:

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/IMA ... PakIch.jpg

[Aineo]

And then classified it as a mammal evolving into a whale based only on its ear. BTW, I don't see a link to the site where you found that diagram or the required statement that needs to be posted with the diagram.

A reconstruction of Pakicetus, based on the skeletons above. This reconstruction can be used freely, but this statement has to be added to its caption: Illustration by Carl Buell, and taken from http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Pakicetid.html.

This is your last warning about using information without the required copyright information included.

[Evilutionist]

-E

Actually you must be playing the fool, there is no evidence a land dwelling animal evolved into a whale. Pakicetus is known only by its skull and is used as proof that a land dwelling animal evolved into an aquatic animal based on assumptions, not the fossil evidence.[/quote]

If anyone is playing games, it's not me. I'm trying to find out what type of evidence you would accept as strong evidence for evolution. You seem either unwilling or unable to answer the question. There is nothing wrong with a non-answer of course, but it also makes it pointless to discuss evolution with you if you can't even tell us what type of evidence you would find acceptable. For example, you don't like the whale transitional fossils so exactly what would you demand of the fossil record to convince you that the proposed evolutionary path is correct?

-E

[Aineo]

Well, since this thread deals with the Cambrian explosion and not whales in particular, whales are not the issues since Pakicetus came long after the Cambrian explosion.

Taking the structure of the ear, as a sign a mammal evolved into a whale is a leap of faith, not any real proof that Pakicetus did not go extinct because an adaptation failed. To convince me of evolution you are going to need more than the bones of the ear.

Now lets stick to the sudden appearance of 32 phyla during the Cambrian. If evolution is the slow and/or gradual emergence of new animals then how do scientists explain the explosion of new phyla in less than 5 million years?

[Green]

I edited the post to leave the link for the picture, as requested.

Taking the structure of the ear, as a sign a mammal evolved into a whale is a leap of faith,

It's just evidence, like the other whale-like features of the skull. That's why, before they found the rest of the body, they thought it was an ordinary whale.

not any real proof that Pakicetus did not go extinct because an adaptation failed.

Actually, it did eventually go extinct, and the particular form of the bone really doesn't do much out of the water. It was a random change that was neutral selectively, that happened to be useful in water.

To convince me of evolution you are going to need more than the bones of the ear.

Well, as you see, it's a great deal more than that.

Now lets stick to the sudden appearance of 32 phyla during the Cambrian.

Not quite, but almost. But keep in mind, no sharks, no mammals, no reptiles, no birds, no trees, no insects... (very long list of things that did not appear until much later than the Cambrian)

If evolution is the slow and/or gradual emergence of new animals

It isn't. The pace of evolution varies a great deal. When new niches become available, such as occured with the evolution of completely scleretized bodies, there is a rapid adaptive radiation. It's happened since, but never on such a broad scale.

then how do scientists explain the explosion of new phyla in less than 5 million years?

Part of evolutionary theory. Doesn't have to be slow.

[Green]

I edited the post to leave the link for the picture, as requested.

Taking the structure of the ear, as a sign a mammal evolved into a whale is a leap of faith,

It's just evidence, like the other whale-like features of the skull. That's why, before they found the rest of the body, they thought it was an ordinary whale.

not any real proof that Pakicetus did not go extinct because an adaptation failed.

Actually, it did eventually go extinct, and the particular form of the bone really doesn't do much out of the water. It was a random change that was neutral selectively, that happened to be useful in water.

To convince me of evolution you are going to need more than the bones of the ear.

Well, as you see, it's a great deal more than that.

Now lets stick to the sudden appearance of 32 phyla during the Cambrian.

Not quite, but almost. But keep in mind, no sharks, no mammals, no reptiles, no birds, no trees, no insects... (very long list of things that did not appear until much later than the Cambrian)

If evolution is the slow and/or gradual emergence of new animals

It isn't. The pace of evolution varies a great deal. When new niches become available, such as occured with the evolution of completely scleretized bodies, there is a rapid adaptive radiation. It's happened since, but never on such a broad scale.

then how do scientists explain the explosion of new phyla in less than 5 million years?

Part of evolutionary theory. Doesn't have to be slow.

[Aineo]

"When new niches become available" is a nice copout for explaining why 32 phyla evolved in a faily short period of time.

Why do you evolutionists refuse to discuss this single subject without bringing in what happened "millions" of years later?

I see you put in the link but you failed to add the additional information that is required when posting that sketch on another site.

[Green]

"When new niches become available" is a nice copout for explaining why 32 phyla evolved in a faily short period of time.

It's pretty easy to demonstrate. For example, we've seen lots of insect speciation from insects brought to the Hawaiian Islands by humans. We see the rather amazing evolutionary radiation of birds in New Zealand, which until recently had no mammals but the occasional bat.

Why do you evolutionists refuse to discuss this single subject without bringing in what happened "millions" of years later?

You mean mentioning that all those other organisms didn't really appear until long, long after the Cambrian? Just an example of how limited the Cambrian explosion actually was. Almost all the organisms we are familiar with, did not exist for hundreds of millions of years afterwards.

I see you put in the link but you failed to add the additional information that is required when posting that sketch on another site.

O.K. I'll go back and see. Hold on...

[Aineo]

It's pretty easy to demonstrate. For example, we've seen lots of insect speciation from insects brought to the Hawaiian Islands by humans. We see the rather amazing evolutionary radiation of birds in New Zealand, which until recently had no mammals but the occasional bat.

Insects remaining insects and birds remaining birds. Your examples don't demonstrate worms becoming reptiles becoming mammals.

Why do you evolutionists refuse to discuss this single subject without bringing in what happened "millions" of years later?

You mean mentioning that all those other organisms didn't really appear until long, long after the Cambrian? Just an example of how limited the Cambrian explosion actually was. Almost all the organisms we are familiar with, did not exist for hundreds of millions of years afterwards.

Another attempt to avoid the threads subject. Since all animals are supposed to have evolved from the 35 known phyla you need to explain how the new phyla appeared in 5 millions of years.

[Green]

Green, on the variability of pacing for evolution:
It's pretty easy to demonstrate. For example, we've seen lots of insect speciation from insects brought to the Hawaiian Islands by humans. We see the rather amazing evolutionary radiation of birds in New Zealand, which until recently had no mammals but the occasional bat.

Insects remaining insects and birds remaining birds.

New families of insects in a few hundred years. New orders of birds in a few hundred thousand years. So it's not surprising that new phyla show up in millions of years. If the niches are open, as they were in the Cambrian, rapid evolution, of the sort we see in the case of Hawaii and New Zealand is quite expected.

Your examples don't demonstrate worms becoming reptiles becoming mammals.

Actually, reptiles didn't evolve from worms. We do, however, have abundant evidence for the evolution of mammals from reptiles. Since this is really about the way that the Cambrian explosion is understood by science, perhaps we can start another thread on the way mammals evolved from reptiles?

Why do you evolutionists refuse to discuss this single subject without bringing in what happened "millions" of years later?

You mean mentioning that all those other organisms didn't really appear until long, long after the Cambrian? Just an example of how limited the Cambrian explosion actually was. Almost all the organisms we are familiar with, did not exist for hundreds of millions of years afterwards.

Another attempt to avoid the threads subject.

It seems pertainent. On the other hand, we have all those signs of soft-bodied animals before the Cambrian. Furthermore, we know that the arthropods who left tracks before the Cambrian were soft-bodied, since the first trilobites we find are soft-bodied, and only obtain scleretized shells later,after which the relatively few forms suddenly "explode" into a wide diversity of trilobites.

Here's a nice site, showing that the phylum arthropoda did not first appear in the Cambrian, but had Precambrian antecedents.
http://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm

The Cambrian, it appears, was not a time when the first phyla appeared, but rather a time when a wide diversity of life evolved from simpler members of these phyla, which existed before the Cambrian.

Since all animals are supposed to have evolved from the 35 known phyla you need to explain how the new phyla appeared in 5 millions of years.

As the site above shows, scientists no longer say 5 million years, since there are earlier members of these phyla.

"The fossil record of molluscs extends back 500 million years and indicates that molluscs first appeared during the Precambrian period. "
Molluska
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/w/mwj121/

There have also been sea pens and jellyfish fossils dating from the Precambrian, so we can cross coelentrates off the list.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/waton/F975.html

There's more, but the Precambrian is not my speciality. I imagine I can cross a few more off, if I take a look.

The Cambrian was a time of great radiation of forms from a few pre-existing ones. But rapid evolution has happened since, and will no doubt happen again.

[runner]

Well, since this thread deals with the Cambrian explosion and not whales in particular, whales are not the issues since Pakicetus came long after the Cambrian explosion.

As I remember you were the one asking for examples of transitional fossils. You have been give one.

Taking the structure of the ear, as a sign a mammal evolved into a whale is a leap of faith, not any real proof that Pakicetus did not go extinct because an adaptation failed. To convince me of evolution you are going to need more than the bones of the ear.

To be more precise, there is no amount of evidence that will convince you. That is not the point. We are simply answering your questions. Besides, in this case, evolution explains the evidence. What other theory explains the transition of ear bones?

Now lets stick to the sudden appearance of 32 phyla during the Cambrian. If evolution is the slow and/or gradual emergence of new animals then how do scientists explain the explosion of new phyla in less than 5 million years?

This length of time is probably not accurate. Something on the order of 50Ma is more likely. This should hardly be considered sudden. Particularly by YECs...

[Aineo]

Runner, this thread is to address the sudden appearance of 32 phyla during the Cambrian explosion, it is not to discuss the evolution of specific animals like whales. Now either post available evidence to show how 3 phyla evolved to 35 phyla or admit the fossil record cannot explain this explosion of phyla.

As to evidence, when "experts" come up with differing renditions of what an "early whale" looked like it would appear the evidence is sketchy at best.

[runner]

Runner, this thread is to address the sudden appearance of 32 phyla during the Cambrian explosion, it is not to discuss the evolution of specific animals like whales. Now either post available evidence to show how 3 phyla evolved to 35 phyla or admit the fossil record cannot explain this explosion of phyla.

THen you shouldn't have asked for an example of transitional fossils. Or you should be more specific when you ask for such information. In the interest of staying on topic, then, I will not respond to your statements, as wrong as they have been demonstrated.

As to evidence, when "experts" come up with differing renditions of what an "early whale" looked like it would appear the evidence is sketchy at best.

Ooops, wavering off topic again, Aineo!

[Aineo]

Runner, this thread is to address the sudden appearance of 32 phyla during the Cambrian explosion, it is not to discuss the evolution of specific animals like whales. Now either post available evidence to show how 3 phyla evolved to 35 phyla or admit the fossil record cannot explain this explosion of phyla.

THen you shouldn't have asked for an example of transitional fossils. Or you should be more specific when you ask for such information. In the interest of staying on topic, then, I will not respond to your statements, as wrong as they have been demonstrated.

If you can't understand the thread topic then maybe you should refrain from posting information that is not on topic. Also if you cannot understand that when asked what evidence I would accept I referrenced the whales since there are fossils for supposed transitional whales.

As to going off topic I will stick to the topic and delete any posts that wavers from showing transitional fossils evolving from 3 phyla to the other 32 phyla. Does this satisfy you?

[Evilutionist]

As to going off topic I will stick to the topic and delete any posts that wavers from showing transitional fossils evolving from 3 phyla to the other 32 phyla. Does this satisfy you?

That satisfies me. Now we can move on to specifics. What evidence would satisfy you that this occurred?

-E

[Aineo]

As to going off topic I will stick to the topic and delete any posts that wavers from showing transitional fossils evolving from 3 phyla to the other 32 phyla. Does this satisfy you?

That satisfies me. Now we can move on to specifics. What evidence would satisfy you that this occurred?

-E

What evolutionary evidence is available to show that natural selection brought about the 32 phyla not found in the pre-Cambrian fossil record? It is my understanding the animals in these 32 phyla are fully developed without any transitional fossils found in the fossil record so how does evolution explain this?

[Green]

As you saw, even a quick check on the net shows that the list is not accurate. The first three I checked turned out to have appeared in the Precambrian. And they were among the largest and most widely-distributed ones, which suggests that it might be a problem of finding the fossils, rather than absence of fossils.

At any rate, the idea of the sudden appearance of metazoans in the Cambrian is no longer a realistic one.

[Aineo]

As you saw, even a quick check on the net shows that the list is not accurate. The first three I checked turned out to have appeared in the Precambrian. And they were among the largest and most widely-distributed ones, which suggests that it might be a problem of finding the fossils, rather than absence of fossils.

At any rate, the idea of the sudden appearance of metazoans in the Cambrian is no longer a realistic one.

Well then UCMP Berkley has a mass of bad information on their website don't they? Would you consider this list of Metazoan phyla inaccurate?
Metazoan Index

[Green]

Out-of-date? Yes. As time goes on, we are finding that more and more of the phyla formerly thought to have first appeared in the Cambrian, to have evolved earlier, in the Precambrian.

[Aineo]

Out-of-date? Yes. As time goes on, we are finding that more and more of the phyla formerly thought to have first appeared in the Cambrian, to have evolved earlier, in the Precambrian.

Generalities will not make your case.

[runner]

Generalities will not make your case.

And non sequiturs will not make yours...

[Aineo]

Generalities will not make your case.

And non sequiturs will not make yours...

Do you think you we can avoid debating terms and stick to the subject of the thread?

Where is the fossil evidence that shows the phyla that first appeard in the Cambrian explosion are the result of natural selection?

[Evilutionist]

Where is the fossil evidence that shows the phyla that first appeard in the Cambrian explosion are the result of natural selection?

This is an excellent question and one that has intrigued scientists for a long time. Before I give you my answer, could you tell me what sort of evidence you would accept as reasonable? I would also like to say that the Cambrian radiation is a hotly debated issue in science because there is so much we don't know about it. Recent work has hinted at some points of discussion and the evolutionary perspective on the CE has generated some predictions borne out by later studies. However, at this point in time, no one can answer your question about the detailed evolutionary steps leading to the Cambrian fossil record. So, if the answer that satisfies you is that "We don't know" then you can stop reading this thread. If you'd like to know what we do know and what paths of research are active, please read on.

Last year (2004) 3 articles came out independently and in rapid succession detailing the Cambrian explosion. The first of these articles dealt with the paleogeographical distribution of the trilobites and the implications of the paleogeography on their evolutionary history. Let me summarize briefly. The paper suggested that the lineage of trilobites were rooted in a bilaterian ancestor that should be found in strata dating back some 50-80 million years (i.e. 570-600 Myr) before their appearance in the fossil record (~520 Myr Note: At the time the paper was published fossil evidence for the bilaterian body plan were not well known). At nearly the same time, a second paper was published on predation in trilobites. This was an important finding because it suggested that an ecosystem (complete with predatory behavior) had developed prior to the appearance of trilobites in the fossil record. The roughly two months after these articles were published a third paper came out describing the discovery of bilaterian fossils in strata dating to ~580 Myr precisely as predicted by the first paper (web links to these discoveries are listed below). To summarize, all science is incomplete, but an incomplete record does not mean we are on the wrong path towards solving the problem. As I've noted before, we must choose the methods that are likely to bear the most fruit and evolutionary biology is 'the unifying principle of biology'. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other explanation for the CE other than evolution (if I am wrong, please let me know what that explanation might be).

-E

Web Links:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... nimal.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200406/06/ ... 45457.html

[Aineo]

The researchers think trilobites, and possibly other early animals, do not show up in the fossil record until later because the animals may have been too small, or too biodegradable.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... nimal.html

However:

Primitive microbes found in rocks covered by the sea 1.4 billion years ago are providing support for the theory that life may have originated in a type of "underwater chimney", Chinese scientists said recently.

The "geological evidence" found on rocks near the Great Wall in northeast China challenges the prevailing theory that evolution depended exclusively on sunlight, said Li Jianghai, professor with the earth and space institute attached to the elite Beijing University.
http://english.people.com.cn/200304/02/ ... 4436.shtml

Also:

What was life like 560 million years ago? The Vendian marks the first appearance of a group of large fossils collectively known as the "Vendian biota" or "Ediacara fauna." The question of what these fossils are is still not settled to everyone's satisfaction; at various times they have been considered algae, lichens, giant protozoans, or even a separate kingdom of life unrelated to anything living today. Some of these fossils are simple blobs that are hard to interpret and could represent almost anything. Some are most like cnidarians, worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods. Others are less easy to interpret and may belong to extinct phyla. But besides the fossils of soft bodies, Vendian rocks contain trace fossils, probably made by wormlike animals slithering over mud. The Vendian rocks thus give us, and YOU through our virtual museum, a good look at the first animals to live on Earth.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html

Meert told Discovery News, "The climate ranged from tropical to subtropical and there were areas of warm shallow seas."

The researchers think trilobites, and possibly other early animals, do not show up in the fossil record until later because the animals may have been too small, or too biodegradable.

"One suggestion is that many animals, including the trilobites, were around but they were very tiny. In particular, tinier than the animals that are usually preserved in the fossil record," Lieberman told Discovery News. "The second explanation is that perhaps the animals were around and of moderate size but lacked hard shells."

He added, "Maybe it is when organisms are at very low population sizes and rare that they are most likely to undergo major periods of evolutionary change, but this is precisely when they're least likely to be preserved in the fossil record."

Yet another study, published in the current Royal Society Biology Letters, supports the theory that life existed well before 543 million years ago, which often is referred to as the Cambrian radiation or explosion. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... nimal.html

One word that keeps popping up in this article is the word "maybe".

Now lets go back to this:

This is an excellent question and one that has intrigued scientists for a long time. Before I give you my answer, could you tell me what sort of evidence you would accept as reasonable? I would also like to say that the Cambrian radiation is a hotly debated issue in science because there is so much we don't know about it. Recent work has hinted at some points of discussion and the evolutionary perspective on the CE has generated some predictions borne out by later studies. However, at this point in time, no one can answer your question about the detailed evolutionary steps leading to the Cambrian fossil record. So, if the answer that satisfies you is that "We don't know" then you can stop reading this thread. If you'd like to know what we do know and what paths of research are active, please read on.

”We don’t know” is a satisfactory answer and indicates Darwin’s theory is far from being a “scientific fact”, which is why I believe that evolution should be taught with the disclaimer proposed by those scientists whose science indicates a “designed universe”.

I am not advocating teaching a "designer" in science classes, as this is not the purpose of science.

[Evilutionist]

"We don’t know” is a satisfactory answer and indicates Darwin’s theory is far from being a “scientific fact”, which is why I believe that evolution should be taught with the disclaimer proposed by those scientists whose science indicates a “designed universe”.

I am not advocating teaching a "designer" in science classes, as this is not the purpose of science.

All science is tentative. Would you also then agree that we should place a disclaimer on books that teach quantum mechanics? Gravity? Magnetism?

-E

[Aineo]

"We don’t know” is a satisfactory answer and indicates Darwin’s theory is far from being a “scientific fact”, which is why I believe that evolution should be taught with the disclaimer proposed by those scientists whose science indicates a “designed universe”.

I am not advocating teaching a "designer" in science classes, as this is not the purpose of science.

All science is tentative. Would you also then agree that we should place a disclaimer on books that teach quantum mechanics? Gravity? Magnetism?

-E

Now you are being silly. Gravity and magnetism can be tested by any child willing to jump off a chair or play with magnets. Quantum mechanics is the study of matter and radiation at the molecular level and is hardly as controversial as the origins and "evolution" of life. Also these are physical sciences that do not have the social impact that evolution can and has had on many people. We know that gravity and magnetism are real and about the ony thing science can do is attempt to explain these forces better than either Newton or Einstein's theories; both of which are inadequate to fully explain either force mathematically. Life is not subject to abstract formulae.

[Evilutionist]

Now you are being silly.

I'm dead serious, we know less about gravity and QM than we do about evolution. We know less about the generation of the Earth's magnetic field than we do about evolution. One of the major objections to evolution is that it requires 'chance'. QM is all about chance and in fact, can be summed up as a series of probabilistic arguments.

Also these are physical sciences that do not ave the social impact that evolution can and has had on many people.

The only reason evolution has any social impact at all is because people have forced a social perspective on it. One could easily go off the psychological deep-end about QM, Magnetism or Gravity. The main difference is that some humans have trouble accepting the fact that they could have evolved. Why? I've never really understood it, but apparently the notion that God creates via evolution makes people uncomfortable, but the fact that God let's neutrons tunnell randomly out of a nucleus does not cause them angst. Bascially, someone had to teach you that evolution was anti-God and you've accepted that hook, line and sinker.

We know that gravity and magnetism are real

We know evolution is real and we know that this makes some people feel less important. It's a psychological barrier, not a natural one.

-E

[Aineo]

Ah, the ego of an over educated professor who only views life through one lens and that lens is science and how science can and cannot describe the physical forces we live with on a daily basis.

Gravity, magnetism, and quantum mechanics (a fairly new branch of physics that Einstein rejected as a valid theory) are simply exercises in how to define the physical world mathematically. Yes advances in all three have benefited mankind.

Evolution on the other hand involves the deepest psychological identity of a human being. But hey, you’re a scientist involved with non-biological chemicals that are not affected by theories that can be demonstrated to show that mankind is nothing more than the product of natural selection and the roll of the dice by organisms that happened to mutate in such a way as to form organic systems so complex that mankind with all his knowledge and technology cannot duplicate. Mankind can manufacture poor facsimiles but nothing to compare with the complexity of the human eye, our nervous system, the brain, and etc.

But then science does not have a conscious does it? Heaven forbid that any human being should fail to bow to the idol and god of science and question the icons of human wisdom and knowledge.

We know that “evolution” within species and families is a fact. We can observe how finches and other animals “mutate” or evolve. However, unlike gravity, magnetism and some of the other physical forces we live with we cannot test Darwinian evolution in a laboratory. So instead of teaching that all life evolved from a common ancestor as a theory you insist this be spoon-fed to all children without any real proof that all life “evolved” from a common ancestor.

By your own words we science cannot show by any evidence how 32 of the 35 existing phyla evolved during the Cambrian period, yet you still insist that evolution is scientific fact testable by science today, which is not totally true. Science has not been able to evolve any organism from a worm to a fish to a reptile to a mammal and until scientist can do just that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory without a shred of empirical evidence.

[Evilutionist]

Ah, the ego of an over educated professor who only views life through one lens and that lens is science and how science can and cannot describe the physical forces we live with on a daily basis.

That's called an ad-hominem argument and is really quite detrimental to discussion.

Gravity, magnetism, and quantum mechanics (a fairly new branch of physics that Einstein rejected as a valid theory) are simply exercises in how to define the physical world mathematically. Yes advances in all three have benefited mankind.

Do you consider nuclear weapons to benefit mankind? One can more easily attach more direct negative consequences to QM and relativity than evolution.

Evolution on the other hand involves the deepest psychological identity of a human being.

Only for some. Scientifically speaking, evolution merely tells me that I am the product of a long line of starts and stops. It does not cause me any deep psychological or theological trauma. It might help if you could explain why a scientific theory troubles your soul so deeply?

But hey, you?re a scientist involved with non-biological chemicals that are not affected by theories that can be demonstrated to show that mankind is nothing more than the product of natural selection and the roll of the dice by organisms

Then why not object to QM as Einstein did? It's basically a roll of the dice argument.

But then science does not have a conscious does it?

Nonsense. Science cannot have a conscience/concious because it is a thing. Scientists can and do have a conscience.

Heaven forbid that any human being should fail to bow to the idol and god of science and question the icons of human wisdom and knowledge.

Nonsense, that's what science is all about, questioning.

By your own words we science cannot show by any evidence how 32 of the 35 existing phyla evolved during the Cambrian period, yet you still insist that evolution is scientific fact testable by science today, which is not totally true.

You confuse a lack of explanation with 'no hope for any explanation'. They are two different things. Given that we know that life evolves, it's not a stretch to look to evolutionary biology to explain that which we still have not solved. To the best of my knowledge, few biologists doubt whether or not the CE is the result of evolution, they just don't have an explanation for how it happened. As you yourself acknowledged (through silence), there is no other compelling explanation for the CE.

-E

[runner]

By your own words we science cannot show by any evidence how 32 of the 35 existing phyla evolved during the Cambrian period, yet you still insist that evolution is scientific fact testable by science today, which is not totally true.

Actually, there is evidence for precursors to the fauna of the Cambrian radiation in all of the Precambrian fossils that we have been dealing with. I don't know where you got this notion that there is no evidence.

Science has not been able to evolve any organism from a worm to a fish to a reptile to a mammal and until scientist can do just that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory without a shred of empirical evidence.

Not at all. We cannot replicate the process of a cooling batholith either and yet we can be pretty sure that it happens. Neither do we create hurricanes in the laboratory, and yet: THERE THEY ARE. As to empirical evidence, first there is plenty in the fossil record and second, what is wrong with circumstantial evidence? Do you realize that we convict people in court based on circumstantial evidence? I know that this may not be good enough for you, but for virtually all of the scientific community it is quite sufficient.

[Aineo]

The only reason evolution has any social impact at all is because people have forced a social perspective on it. One could easily go off the psychological deep-end about QM, Magnetism or Gravity. The main difference is that some humans have trouble accepting the fact that they could have evolved. Why? I've never really understood it, but apparently the notion that God creates via evolution makes people uncomfortable, but the fact that God let's neutrons tunnell randomly out of a nucleus does not cause them angst. Bascially, someone had to teach you that evolution was anti-God and you've accepted that hook, line and sinker.

If my comment concerning the ego of an overeducated professor is an ad hominem so is your statement that someone had to teach me to reject Darwinian evolution, which is actually a false statement. When I look at the complexity of life, let alone the complexity found within the human body I rejected natural selection and the evolution of all life from a common ancestor long before I got involved in this debate.

Since you insist on bringing the physical sciences into this debate and if you will actually think about what you have posted you are in fact making my case. We know gravity and magnetism are real because we experience them daily. However, science classes teach that science cannot fully explain either gravity or magnetism. Yet Darwinian evolution is taught as an indisputable scientific fact. You brought up quantum mechanics, yet not all branches of physics can be reconciled with each other.

It is a tribute to the integrity of the scientific community, that they still honor fact over authority. Literally thousands of micro physicists are lined up on the side of Quantum mechanics, Heisenberg and the overall theories that support the Quantum point of view. Einstein stands alone against the mob in his view of the universe. Yet his view has not been suppressed; it is alive and well. One reason is that the Quantum physicists
feel in their bones that something is wrong with their point of view. The Quantum mechanics view and Einstein's view are incompatible. The two views cannot be merged. They stand in opposition to one another. If one is right, then the other is wrong. It is that simple. No scientific experiment has been proposed that will resolve the issue, as it is irresolvable.
http://www.newphysics2000.org/einstein.htm

The origins of life as well as the origins of species also has another explanation that is irresolvable – creation vs. Darwinism.

Actually, there is evidence for precursors to the fauna of the Cambrian radiation in all of the Precambrian fossils that we have been dealing with. I don't know where you got this notion that there is no evidence.

The only “evidence” is what you want to believe the fossil record might demonstrate given enough time.

THERE THEY ARE. As to empirical evidence, first there is plenty in the fossil record and second, what is wrong with circumstantial evidence? Do you realize that we convict people in court based on circumstantial evidence? I know that this may not be good enough for you, but for virtually all of the scientific community it is quite sufficient.

Have you seen news reports where convictions have been overturned after real evidence has revealed the “circumstantial evidence” used to convict people has been uncovered?

[runner]

The only “evidence” is what you want to believe the fossil record might demonstrate given enough time.

No, that would be the interpretation. The evidence clearly shows a progression of fossils that is not explained by YEC but is explained by evolution.

THERE THEY ARE. As to empirical evidence, first there is plenty in the fossil record and second, what is wrong with circumstantial evidence? Do you realize that we convict people in court based on circumstantial evidence? I know that this may not be good enough for you, but for virtually all of the scientific community it is quite sufficient.

Have you seen news reports where convictions have been overturned after real evidence has revealed the “circumstantial evidence” used to convict people has been uncovered?

And some convictions are validated. Nevertheless, as I said, circumstantial evidence has been accepted by the courts.

[Aineo]

The only “evidence” is what you want to believe the fossil record might demonstrate given enough time.

No, that would be the interpretation. The evidence clearly shows a progression of fossils that is not explained by YEC but is explained by evolution.

And your comment is an interpretation of what the "evidence" can or cannot actually prove.

YEC's take the fossils at face value as fully formed and created. Some YEC's also accept the evolution within a family or species is an accepted scientific fact. So what is really under discussion is how you view and define evolution.

As to circumstancial evidence, it has been viewed by courts as valid proof that was then reversed on appeal by a higher court. There will come a time when the Highest Court of Appeals will inform us of absolute truth.

[runner]

The only “evidence” is what you want to believe the fossil record might demonstrate given enough time.

No, that would be the interpretation. The evidence clearly shows a progression of fossils that is not explained by YEC but is explained by evolution.

And your comment is an interpretation of what the "evidence" can or cannot actually prove.

Of course. I have no problem with intrepretations. Evidence 'proves' nothing. It only supports or negates. In this case the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of evolutionary theory.

YEC's take the fossils at face value as fully formed and created.

I would say that there is no such thing as a partially formed, so we agree on that point. As to 'created', no, there is no evidence of creation by a supernatural being.

Some YEC's also accept the evolution within a family or species is an accepted scientific fact. So what is really under discussion is how you view and define evolution.

This is a classic YEC red herring: Turn the discussion into a semantic argument and redefine the terms to match the agends. It should be clear to everone here that we are discussing the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution. That includes all aspects of common ancestry and adaptation.

As to circumstancial evidence, it has been viewed by courts as valid proof that was then reversed on appeal by a higher court.

Always? What are you saying here? This is silly. My point was that courts have accepted circumstantial evidence. Do you agree or not?

[Aineo]

Now who is playing word games? I have already stated that courts (actually juries) have accepted circumstantial evidence that in some cases courts (judges, not juries, who are experts in the law not evidence) have overturned when the circumstantial evidence was shown to have convicted the wrong man.

As to evolution, the automobile has "evolved" over time by design not natural selection. So I guess we can debate the meaning of evolution as you understand it and as I understand it. However, if you insist on using the Darwinian concept of evolution then I totally reject evolution as totally illogical and having never been proven with real evidence.

[runner]

Now who is playing word games? I have already stated that courts (actually juries) have accepted circumstantial evidence that in some cases courts (judges, not juries, who are experts in the law not evidence) have overturned when the circumstantial evidence was shown to have convicted the wrong man.

My point was that the courts, juries, if you will, have accepted circumstantial evidence in the past. No more no less. It appears to me that you agree.

As to evolution, the automobile has "evolved" over time by design not natural selection. So I guess we can debate the meaning of evolution as you understand it and as I understand it. However, if you insist on using the Darwinian concept of evolution then I totally reject evolution as totally illogical and having never been proven with real evidence.

Somehow, I don't think the purpose of this board was to debate the evolution of automobiles or clothing design... But yes, the meaning of evolution is the broad concept that Darwin started with, and is now modified to be the modern synthesis of evolution which has common ancestry at its root. And no, it is not proven, but the evidence in its favor is mountainous. There is actually no competition to the theory of evolution when it comes to explaining the origin life's diversity on earth. It is a scientific fact.

[Aineo]

Circumstantial evidence was used in the O.J. Simpson trial criminal trial as well as the civil trial; he was acquited by the criminal jury and found guilty or liable by the civil jury. So circumstantial evidence is accepted or rejected by jurors based on who has the best attorney not necesarily the evidence used at trial.

Somehow, I don't think the purpose of this board was to debate the evolution of automobiles or clothing design... But yes, the meaning of evolution is the broad concept that Darwin started with, and is now modified to be the modern synthesis of evolution which has common ancestry at its root. And no, it is not proven, but the evidence in its favor is mountainous. There is actually no competition to the theory of evolution when it comes to explaining the origin life's diversity on earth. It is a scientific fact.

And I will repeat this is not a science message board. There are some words that are used in science that have various meanings depending on how they are used and evolution is one of them. When speaking of the evolution in finches what is being addressed is changes within a specific group and when speaking of fossil evidence and evolution the word can have a different meaning.

As to the purpose of this board since you are not part of the management of this board I would say you are not in a position to lecture me on the purpose of the board.

[Evilutionist]

If my comment concerning the ego of an overeducated professor is an ad hominem so is your statement that someone had to teach me to reject Darwinian evolution, which is actually a false statement.

Ok, fair enough. I'll accept that your rejection of evolution had nothing to do with religion.

When I look at the complexity of life, let alone the complexity found within the human body I rejected natural selection and the evolution of all life from a common ancestor long before I got involved in this debate.

This is basically an argument from incredulity and, as such, of little use in the debate. It's saying "I don't see how it can be true", but that is a far cry from demonstrating it to be false. There's nothing wrong with such a stance, but it puts you in an awkward position because it seems to indicate your mind is closed on the matter.

Since you insist on bringing the physical sciences into this debate

All science is fair game.

and if you will actually think about what you have posted

I rarely post in haste.

you are in fact making my case. We know gravity and magnetism are real because we experience them daily.

We know that evolution is real because we experience it everyday.

However, science classes teach that science cannot fully explain either gravity or magnetism.

We also teach this about evolution (at least I do and most of my colleagues do this as well). We explain that we know evolution happens, continues to happen and has happened in the past, but that there are a number of (as yet) unexplained phenomena (such as the CE). If we take the dogmatic stance and say that 'no way could evolution explain the CE', then we stop doing science. At the moment, there are no alternative explanations for the Cambrian fossil record. I actually spoke with Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute at a meeting of the Geological Society of America (see these people do have a forum to present their views). Paul (a philosopher by training) had a poster on the CE where he was trying to make the point that cells must have known beforehand what the end result was going to be and that they must have known in a hurry. He calls this 'the marching band problem'. Simply put it says that every member of the band must know where he/she must end up after a series of maneuvers in order to spell out a particular word. It's an interesting view of evolution that suggests that evolution has a goal. However, most evolutionary biologists don't think that evolution set out to 'make a trilobite' and rather than having an end goal in sight, evolution makes do with what it already has and thus we see evidence of sub-optimal 'design' in things like the eye and the knee. I know you reject the notion that these designs are sub-optimal and I don't want to further belabor the point, but it illustrates the nature of the issue. If you want to adopt some ID explanation for the CE (and I'll even help you out here since you never came out with this yourself) such as Goddidit, then I might ask you why? Why did God create the trilobites and then kill them off with a large volcanic eruption? Why did God make the dinosaurs and then kill them off with an asteroid? Was God tinkering with the design with the eventual goal of producing a human and then kill off everything that came before? These are just questions I have, so if you agree that ID is a useful (and perhaps eventually scientific) pursuit, then questions such as "Why" will logically follow.

-E

[Aineo]

This is basically an argument from incredulity and, as such, of little use in the debate. It's saying "I don't see how it can be true", but that is a far cry from demonstrating it to be false. There's nothing wrong with such a stance, but it puts you in an awkward position because it seems to indicate your mind is closed on the matter.

Am I close minded on Darwin and the “Origin of Species”; yes I am. Am I close-minded on evolution; no I am not.

We also teach this about evolution (at least I do and most of my colleagues do this as well). We explain that we know evolution happens, continues to happen and has happened in the past, but that there are a number of (as yet) unexplained phenomena (such as the CE). If we take the dogmatic stance and say that 'no way could evolution explain the CE', then we stop doing science. At the moment, there are no alternative explanations for the Cambrian fossil record.

I do not have a problem with science doing science in the laboratory and in the classroom. However, I do have a problem when scientists invade a Christian message board and attempt to dictate what will and will not be discussed based on their own agenda.

You want to limit what you will discuss based on what is written in scientific journals and we want to discuss what is found in book and articles scientific journals will not publish based more on bias than a search for new information. I had an uncle who was the head of the engineering department at the University of Utah, I have a cousin who was a geology professor at Rice Institute in Houston and then a university in Missouri, and I have a cousin with a Ph.D. in physics and all have shared that getting published in scientific journals is difficult even impossible if the article questions the status quo or contravenes long held biases. Here we have the freedom to discuss anything and everything dealing with science and how it affects us and our faith.

I know you reject the notion that these designs are sub-optimal and I don't want to further belabor the point, but it illustrates the nature of the issue. If you want to adopt some ID explanation for the CE (and I'll even help you out here since you never came out with this yourself) such as Goddidit, then I might ask you why? Why did God create the trilobites and then kill them off with a large volcanic eruption? Why did God make the dinosaurs and then kill them off with an asteroid? Was God tinkering with the design with the eventual goal of producing a human and then kill off everything that came before? These are just questions I have, so if you agree that ID is a useful (and perhaps eventually scientific) pursuit, then questions such as "Why" will logically follow.

Now you are getting into theology. Is the human body sub-optimal? That depends on who is involved in the discussion. I have read articles by human anatomists who state the human body is efficiently and optimally designed for how we live. Talk to any engineer or architect and they will tell you that efficiency in design and optimal design are not always the same. Why did God create dinosaurs and then allow them to go extinct? My answer is who knows the mind of God but the Spirit of God. We can also ask if God views lust as a sin then why did God create mankind with emotions that lead us to lust; or why since coveting is a sin did God create mankind with free will that includes coveting as the one sin that defeats every human being on the face of the earth.

Let me paraphrase Galileo; astronomy teaches about the heavens and the Bible teaches how to get into heaven”. In his book God and the Astronomers Robert Jastrow writes:

“Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind – supposedly a very objective mind – when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases. (emphasis added by me)

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co. 1978) pg. 16

Science does not have all the answers to life and our universe. The questions that are on many minds that science refuses to address are what is the origin of life and what is the origin of the Big Bang. As far as science is concerned evolution and the Big Bang are naturalistic explanations that avoid the first cause of all that science tries to explain. Science seeks to be in control and the fact is science is not in control of the hearts and minds of all men and never will be.

Is there another explanation for the origins of the universe and the diversity of animal life other than evolution and the Big Bang? Yes, “In the beginning God created..” and “God created man in His own image..”. If you need a naturalistic and scientific explanation for Genesis 1 that is your right and privilege; however it is not your right and privilege to insist that science has to be in control of a Christian forum titled “Science, Creation, & Evolution”. It is not your right or privilege to mandate how this forum is managed or what information is or is not scientific based on your personal opinions, research or agenda.

Digging into ancient history is not going to affect my quality of life and you have posted the only answer that is scientifically acceptable for the Cambrian explosion and that answer is “we don’t know”.

My only agenda for this forum is to get it back on track and let our assigned moderator continue with sharing science to show the improbability of Darwinian evolution, the probability of the decay of light speed, and address science as it affects fundamentalists who view the Bible as literal truth; an agenda that disagrees with control freak scientists who are out to take control of all they survey.

[Evilutionist]

Am I close minded on Darwin and the “Origin of Species”; yes I am. Am I close-minded on evolution; no I am not.

Well, Darwin's book is 150+ years old and laid the framework for modern evolutionary biology. It was a good start. If evolutionary biologists had been closed-minded on his book, we'd never have made significant progress in understanding the intricacies of evolutionary biology. So, today being 'close-minded' on Darwin's book is akin to saying "I won't drive a model-T as my day to day car". I guess I don't get what you are trying to say here.

I do not have a problem with science doing science in the laboratory and in the classroom. However, I do have a problem when scientists invade a Christian message board and attempt to dictate what will and will not be discussed based on their own agenda.

The topic of this board is science, creation and evolution. If these topics don't belong here and are not to be discussed, then why not change the title of the board? If the board is only open to non-scientists, then why not make that one of the rules? Personally, I think that scientists can bring good information to such a board, but if you are the boss and you tell me that scientists are not welcome on the board, I'll leave.

You want to limit what you will discuss based on what is written in scientific journals and we want to discuss what is found in book and articles scientific journals will not publish based more on bias than a search for new information.

No, I mentioned quite clearly that I have some thoughts on ID. I've also mentioned that several prominent ID proponents have indicated that ID is not science. I merely think it's important to make sure everyone knows what ID is and what it is not. Science journals will publish a wide range of well thought out ideas, that's really all it takes.

I had an uncle who was the head of the engineering department at the University of Utah, I have a cousin who was a geology professor at Rice Institute in Houston and then a university in Missouri, and I have a cousin with a Ph.D. in physics and all have shared that getting published in scientific journals is difficult even impossible if the article questions the status quo or contravenes long held biases.

Hmm, this is partially true, but paints a much dimmer picture than reality (in my experience). Challenging the status quo is tough because it demands that you build a strong case for the challenge. Merely saying "I don't like this idea" is unlikely to get you published, but saying "This idea has problems whereas my new idea eliminates those problems and offers up a better unifying concept" are likely to get published. I've also found that provocative articles that are well-defended will also get published. What I am trying to say is that merely complaining about perceived failings of a concept is not enough unless you can offer something better.

Here we have the freedom to discuss anything and everything dealing with science and how it affects us and our faith.

That does not seem to fit with what you said above.

Let me paraphrase Galileo; astronomy teaches about the heavens and the Bible teaches how to get into heaven”

I thought that was one of the Popes, thanks for giving me the correct source!!

The questions that are on many minds that science refuses to address are what is the origin of life and what is the origin of the Big Bang

I don't think this is true at all. I've just finished an article on the origin of life. Science journals ranging from biology to geology to astronomy are replete with these sorts of investigations.

As far as science is concerned evolution and the Big Bang are naturalistic explanations that avoid the first cause of all that science tries to explain.

Well, science is a naturalistic pursuit by definition so that's hardly a damning statement from you.

Science seeks to be in control and the fact is science is not in control of the hearts and minds of all men and never will be.

That's an absolute position and is indefensible. Many of my colleagues and friends would disagree with you. You have to be careful painting an absolutist picture such as this. There may be some scientists who fit the statement as there would be some religious leaders who fit the statement (sub religion for science in your sentence), but the statements are both false and really do not forward the debate.

Is there another explanation for the origins of the universe and the diversity of animal life other than evolution and the Big Bang? Yes, “In the beginning God created..” and “God created man in His own image..”. If you need a naturalistic and scientific explanation for Genesis 1 that is your right and privilege; however it is not your right and privilege to insist that science has to be in control of a Christian forum titled “Science, Creation, & Evolution”. It is not your right or privilege to mandate how this forum is managed or what information is or is not scientific based on your personal opinions, research or agenda.

I've never tried to run this board. I try to follow the rules and ask for clarification of the rules when I am not clear. I've also never insisted that science must be in control of a forum (whatever that means to you). It's interesting that your explanation is Goddidit. Perfectly acceptable to me, but it leads to the follow up questions such as might be posed by an equally devout Muslim "Allah did it" or a Buddhist "It always was". How would we test the alternative hypotheses? WHat evidence, if provided would cause you to abandon your hypothesis that the God of the bible did it?

Digging into ancient history is not going to affect my quality of life and you have posted the only answer that is scientifically acceptable for the Cambrian explosion and that answer is “we don’t know”.

Neither is ID! I never said that all science is about the quality of life, but we are curious folk and finding answers is part of the joy of living. Not knowing is not a bad thing, not searching is (IMO).

My only agenda for this forum is to get it back on track

I have not seen our discussion get too off-track.

and let our assigned moderator continue with sharing science to show the improbability of Darwinian evolution, the probability of the decay of light speed, and address science as it affects fundamentalists who view the Bible as literal truth; an agenda that disagrees with control freak scientists who are out to take control of all they survey.

Nothing like finishing with a good ad-hom. I have no control over this board, don't want control over this board and am willing to participate in the discussion according to its rules. I've tried to post relevant information, ask probing questions and correct myself when I might have been out of line. If you see that as 'control freak' than I have no idea how any meaningful conversation may ensue and I'll make sure not to try to engage you in discussion. There are many other boards and many others willing to have a spirited exchange even when we disagree.

-E

[Aineo]

When you refuse to discuss what is not published in sceintific journals you are in fact attempting to control what is being discussed on this board. When your main reason for posting is to oppose what you see as a socio-political agenda then science is not why you post.

Can the evidence of science demonstrate an intelligent designer - yes or no? In my opinion the answer is yes. Would an intelligent designer use similarities in physiology for different species, families, orders, and etc.? Why not? Once a basic functional and efficient design is determined why redesign or change it?

ID and atheism are not science but how one understands science can be filtered through ID and/or atheism to come to whatever conclusion one desires to draw based on an agenda that has nothing to do with science. It seems your agenda is to trash what the evidence can show and not to teach science per se. Your agenda seems to be to control how people understand science and by taking control of peoples minds you control a society.

[Evilutionist]

When you refuse to discuss what is not published in sceintific journals you are in fact attempting to control what is being discussed on this board.

False. I'm merely commenting on what I consider to be scientific. I'm perfectly happy to discuss issues not in scientific journals such as ID, faith etc. You're making false accusations as to what I will and will not discuss.

When your main reason for posting is to oppose what you see as a socio-political agenda then science is not why you post.

I post for a number of reasons. I post a mix of facts (usually referenced), opinion (clearly stated as such) and questions. You are free to disagree, disregard or dispose of any posts you don't like.

In my opinion the answer is yes. Would an intelligent designer use similarities in physiology for different species, families, orders, and etc.? Why not? Once a basic functional and efficient design is determined why redesign or change it?

Ok good post. Would an intelligent designer include failure into all the designs as well or is this merely the product of an imperfect designer?

ID and atheism are not science

Correct

but how one understands science can be filtered through ID and/or atheism

Philosophy can pervert anything. Science can be filtered through Wicca, politics, religion or just about any filter you want. The good thing about science is that it can be independently tested no matter ones philosophy.

to come to whatever conclusion one desires to draw based on an agenda that has nothing to do with science.

Exactly and that's why it's important to note that good science is accepted independently of ones personal philosophy.

It seems your agenda is to trash what the evidence can show and not to teach science per se.

Then you've been reading too much into my posts. Science is about teaching what we do and don't know and the evidence that leads to answers and questions. I think I've been quite clear on that.

Your agenda seems to be to control how people understand science and by taking control of peoples minds you control a society.

My 'agenda' is to carry on a lively conversation and debate specifics of evolutionary science and outline what I perceive as the main weaknesses of its critics.

-E

[Aineo]

My 'agenda' is to carry on a lively conversation and debate specifics of evolutionary science and outline what I perceive as the main weaknesses of its critics.

-E

If you expect me to believe this then you will have to deny the agenda posted in your prior presence on this forum under the screen name Joe Meert. As Joe Meert you made it perfectly clear you were out to debate a socio-political agenda not science and you also made it perfectly clear you refused to discuss any topic based on publications other than what is found in science journals.

In other words Evilutionist you are being hypocritical and we both know it.

[Evilutionist]

In other words Evilutionist you are being hypocritical and we both know it.

I explained clearly what I am interested in discussing. In this thread it is the CE. Now, if you'd rather not discuss the CE, then I am happy to ignore your posts and you can happily ignore mine.

-E

[Aineo]

In other words Evilutionist you are being hypocritical and we both know it.

I explained clearly what I am interested in discussing. In this thread it is the CE. Now, if you'd rather not discuss the CE, then I am happy to ignore your posts and you can happily ignore mine.

-E

I can also rename this forum and delete any post or ban any individual who chooses to ignore the forum title. As to your above comment you have qualified your original statement by adding "CE".

As to the "CE" what evidence is there to indicate evolution of 32 phyla from the 3 pre-Cambrian phyla other than assumptions based on a theory that can be interpreted more than one way? Since you have already admitted there is none what is there to discuss?

[Evilutionist]

I can also rename this forum and delete any post or ban any individual who chooses to ignore the forum title.

Yes, you can. I'm glad that's off your chest. As to clarifying, isn't that what the edit button is for?

As to the "CE" what evidence is there to indicate evolution of 32 phyla from the 3 pre-Cambrian phyla other than assumptions based on a theory that can be interpreted more than one way? Since you have already admitted there is none what is there to discuss?

There is evidence for precursors to the Cambrian organisms so one of your objections (not enough time) is incorrect. Secondly, I have enquired as to how ID might explain the Cambrian fossil record and its implications. It seems that one entire line of design really sucked (the Ediacarans) because they were killed off nearly as soon as they formed so far as we can tell. Also, I mentioned the notion that the CE is likely an incorrect description of what happened and that 'slow burn' is more appropos. However, it is duly noted that you believe that the current lack of consensus means there is no consensus forthcoming and the topic is not worth pursuing. That's fine and I suppose that ends the discussion; however, I'll keep my eye on the thread in case others want to discuss the issue further.

-E

[Aineo]

Great, and I will get with my moderators and come up with a forum title that will eliminate all apologetics for evolution and a naturalistic explanation for creation so we can get this forum back to what it was before you and your group invaded our message board.

[Evilutionist]

:D Great, and I will get with my moderators and come up with a forum title that will eliminate all apologetics for evolution and a naturalistic explanation for creation so we can get this forum back to what it was before you and your group invaded our message board.

Enjoy! I've always found the most intellectually stimulating debates to occur between people who agree on everything!

-E

[Aineo]

:D Great, and I will get with my moderators and come up with a forum title that will eliminate all apologetics for evolution and a naturalistic explanation for creation so we can get this forum back to what it was before you and your group invaded our message board.

Enjoy! I've always found the most intellectually stimulating debates to occur between people who agree on everything!

-E

And I have found that when those who agree with each other are the only ones in a discussion new ideas and findings are thrown out the window in favor of the status quo, which is demonstrated by your refusal as Joe Meert to venture beyond scientific journals.

We had some lively and stimulating discussions going before you and your group showed up and those discussions were not just evolution is the only truth, which was the original purpose for this forum.

You have had your say and now it is time for this forum to get back on track and discuss how ID can be demonstrated by science not just that science disproves ID.

[Evilutionist]

You have had your say and now it is time for this forum to get back on track and discuss how ID can be demonstrated by science not just that science disproves ID.

I'm game, how about some evidence how ID can be demonstrated. I'm willing to listen to whatever case you have to make. You can start with explaining the CE via ID if you like. How do we confirm that an intelligent designer caused the CE? What evidence do we look for? How can ID be tested in the case of the CE? What sort of evidence would falsify ID if that evidence could be found. Good topic, care to expand on it?

-E

[matt12]

Of couurse he will. Darwin released his theory of evolution in 1858 AD and published it in 1859 exactly 150 years after this date is 2008 or 2009 AD. This book that Darwin published is a major sorce for disbelief in God.

If each day is a month being 30 days and if one day can be used to signify one year in Bible prophecy, as has been used by the Lord before in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. then the 5 months in Revelations 9:5 would end in 2008/2009 with the return of the Lord.

The sting like a scorpion, in Revelations 9 is referring to disbelief in God or skepticism metaphorically. Of course this disbelief and skeptism will end when the Lord returns, as 'every knee shall bow'. But first there must be a nuclear war unfortunately.