Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Science Disproves Evolution


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
674 replies to this topic

#1
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Bounded Variations

Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few ©. New features apparently don’t evolve.

a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

#2
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,609 posts
Amen~!

#3
apologia828

apologia828
  • Members
  • 44 posts
Great job starting this thread. I'd like to add another example that seems to be the big unanswered question for Darwinists. I actually asked one of my university professors this question (since he mentioned the Lucy fossil as a missing link), and he completely dodged my question, which was by email. I asked a number of other Darwinists and have yet to receive a straight answer. Here it is:

If evolution is true, then why do we find thousands of fossils of fully formed Cambrian phyla withought a trace of an evolutionary process just underneath the Cambrian layer in the pre-cambrian strata? And I'm not asking for examples of small worms previously found that these species may have evolved from. No. I'm simply asking the same question Darwin hinself asked. see, from an evolutionary perspective I should be able to predict that given the plentiful amount of fossils found in the Cambrian, if the theory is true, I should find just below an evolutionary process showing the transformation from edicarian fauna or worms (I've heard both), to trilobyte, amolacaris, etc.

The interesting thing is as evolutionist himself Alfred S. Romer stated, "If we were to expect to find ancestors too, below this (Cambrian strata) are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors...would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of life, and the general picture could reasonably be consistent with the idea of special creatition.

#4
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

If evolution is true, then why do we find thousands of fossils of fully formed Cambrian phyla withought a trace of an evolutionary process just underneath the Cambrian layer in the pre-cambrian strata?


I don't know specifics, but basically the Cambrian was when hard parts of organisms started to appear (i.e. bone, particularly the exoskeleton). As you've probably noticed, most fossil remains are the remains of hard parts of said organism. If there are no hard parts to be preserved, the chances go way down of that organism ever being preserved. So when you're talking about the ancestors of the first organisms to have a decent chance of being preserved, you're not going to find a whole lot.

It is sort of like trying to reconstruct the early formation of Hebrew scripture through texts, eventually you'll get to a point where the stories were there in time but were preserved in an oral tradition and not through writing. The pre-Cambrian is like the oral traditional period where none of the stories were preserved for later generations, whereas the Cambrian is like taking those oral traditions and putting them on paper where they will be preserved for future generations.

I am curious though, as an aside, if you've ever looked into a lineage that we do actually have fossils for? After all, evolution is about how life changes over time, not how the first organisms came to be.

#5
apologia828

apologia828
  • Members
  • 44 posts


If evolution is true, then why do we find thousands of fossils of fully formed Cambrian phyla withought a trace of an evolutionary process just underneath the Cambrian layer in the pre-cambrian strata?


I don't know specifics, but basically the Cambrian was when hard parts of organisms started to appear (i.e. bone, particularly the exoskeleton). As you've probably noticed, most fossil remains are the remains of hard parts of said organism. If there are no hard parts to be preserved, the chances go way down of that organism ever being preserved. So when you're talking about the ancestors of the first organisms to have a decent chance of being preserved, you're not going to find a whole lot.

It is sort of like trying to reconstruct the early formation of Hebrew scripture through texts, eventually you'll get to a point where the stories were there in time but were preserved in an oral tradition and not through writing. The pre-Cambrian is like the oral traditional period where none of the stories were preserved for later generations, whereas the Cambrian is like taking those oral traditions and putting them on paper where they will be preserved for future generations.

I am curious though, as an aside, if you've ever looked into a lineage that we do actually have fossils for? After all, evolution is about how life changes over time, not how the first organisms came to be.


What about embryos? Do you think those would be able to survive being fossilized? We have micriscopic embryos just under the cambrian layer in China, for example. Not only that but the famous "marella" of the Cambrian was a soft-bodied specimen which is what was a tremendous surprise to some of the paleontologists excavating the burgess shale in Canada. Therefore the whole hard-bodied only argument bears no weight here. I hope you understand the tremendous problem here for evolution. I have an agnostic friend who recently admitted that under the scrutiny of the evidence he has changed his stance on evolution. There is no question that those fossils have to be there if evolution were true. Even Richard Dawkins when speaking about the Cambrian fossils said, "We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." I completly agree with him and Darwin in asking where are the transitions?

I'd be very interested to see a lineage demonstrating macro-evolution but all I've ever seen is micro-evolution. However, I don't want to.ignore this because evolution according to Darwin stands or falls in the idea which was orginal with Darwin, that all life is derived from a comman ancestor. So, yes the origin of the first species is important. Thanks for your feedback and take care.

Edited by apologia828, 29 July 2011 - 10:28 PM.


#6
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

What about embryos? Do you think those would be able to survive being fossilized? We have micriscopic embryos just under the cambrian layer in China, for example. Not only that but the famous "marella" of the Cambrian was a soft-bodied specimen which is what was a tremendous surprise to some of the paleontologists excavating the burgess shale in Canada. Therefore the whole hard-bodied only argument bears no weight here.


It isn't that there aren't any, but because they aren't hard bodied they are less likely to be preserved. I intentionally didn't say that there weren't any soft bodied organisms, I'm well aware they exist, but they are few and it is because it is much harder for them to be preserved. Scientists usually aren't stupid, there's a reason why they were surprised to find the soft body marella, it is very unlikely that such an organism would have been preserved. I'm sure that you're aware that when an organism dies, usually after a while all that's left is bone as the soft parts decay - thus fossils are usually the remains of hard parts like bone. I think you should really think about the differences of hard and soft parts when it comes to fossilization and decay; it doesn't equal absolutes, but it does make strong correlations. And those correlations are seen in the fossil record from every strata.

I hope you understand the tremendous problem here for evolution. I have an agnostic friend who recently admitted that under the scrutiny of the evidence he has changed his stance on evolution. There is no question that those fossils have to be there if evolution were true. Even Richard Dawkins when speaking about the Cambrian fossils said, "We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." I completly agree with him and Darwin in asking where are the transitions?


I really don't see the problem for evolution here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lets say, for sake of argument, that there are absolutely no organisms below the Cambrian. Yeah, life before then would be an even greater mystery, but it doesn't negate or wane any of the other observations/evidence out there that does support evolution. Remember, evolution is about how life changes, not how it got here.

I'd be very interested to see a lineage demonstrating macro-evolution but all I've ever seen is micro-evolution. However, I don't want to.ignore this because evolution according to Darwin stands or falls in the idea which was orginal with Darwin, that all life is derived from a comman ancestor. So, yes the origin of the first species is important. Thanks for your feedback and take care.


First it would be sensible to have a working, agreeable, definition of macro-evolution. That way we don't talk passe, and it makes for more concrete conversation. There are several ways to define macro-evolution, especially within the evo-creo debate, but I'll start off with a common definition that sort of sets the minimum requirements needed to be called macro-evolution: "Evolution at the species level or higher." Obviously me showing you speciation isn't going to cut it, and many see it as micro-evolution (incorrectly btw), so something else needs to be put on the table.

In addition, there are other ways to look for evidence that would support or hurt the idea of all life coming from a common ancestor besides looking for fossil remains. Actually, come to think of it, it is probably one of the worst ways to go about it given that there is just so little information to go by in strata older than the Cambrian - especially once you get to the microbial level. It's my understanding that a lot of information regarding common ancestry comes from genetics. Thanks to genetics, for example, we learned that Archaea aren't a subset of bacteria, rather they have a completely different lineage.

Shalom.

#7
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts


Bounded Variations

Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.


Hello Pahu, I remember you from Beliefnet! You came in as I was fading out, so we didn't interact too much.

There is more to evolution than who produces the most offspring the fastest (stasis has its part too). But to play your game, bacteria are unusually diverse; they have the most diverse kingdom than any other. So even in your flawed analysis you can't seem to knock down evolution. :laugh:

But to be more serious, look at it this way, a main part of evolution is adapting to a particular niche. If your group finds that niche, does it well, than there is little incentive/pressure from the environment (the main source of natural selection) to evolve that group into something else. In this case a faster reproduction cycle would not be beneficial, rather it would be a negative as it would waste time and energy reproducing to adapt to changes that aren't happening.

To address the 'more offspring the better' claim, it is also true that each offspring you have takes more energy to produce. If you look at complex organisms, it takes a lot of energy to produce each child. Imagine how much energy it would take from a human mother to produce 100 children in her womb, let alone raise a 100 children. Keep in mind also that each ecosystem has only a certain number of resources; only so many organisms can live off of it. If you produce too many children it is such a waste of energy as too many of them will die from a lack of resources (like food, water, shelter) that it puts you at a disadvantage.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few ©. New features apparently don’t evolve.


"New features" is an interesting concept as according to evolution you're looking at existing structures that have been modified (like lungs from swim bladders). Anyways, I'm not sure how you get the notion that there are few microbial species :noidea: Microbes include bacteria, protists, archaea, fungi, and even a few plants and animals! Not sure what to say other than your premise is just wrong.

#8
Don Fanucci

Don Fanucci

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 298 posts


Bounded Variations

Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]


C'mon folks. This was easy to look up and again shows the danger of "creation science" being driven by non experts (Walt Brown is YEC with a background in engineering). There are tens of thousands of species in a single liter of sea water, and the search for bacterial species has exploded in the last few years due to new technology. Advances in genome sequencing, called next generation or deep sequencing, have allowed researchers to sequence every organism in specific niches, including the human body. The number of species discovered in each niche have been so numerous, they don't have time to name them. This is due in part to the sensitivity and throughput of the instrumentation, but also because you no longer need to grow out the organisms, you can just sequence them as part of the sample. This is the instrumentation that is driving the push towards the $1000 human genome, which will be about 4-5 orders of magnitude cheaper than what it used to cost using current technologies at big genome centers. The ultimate goal is personalized medicine, where your genome can be sequenced and then screened for markers of disease. We do that now with SNPs, which provide an easy way to screen using PCR, but it would be far simpler to just draw some blood, send it out to a lab, and get a complete profile back in a couple of weeks.

#9
Don Fanucci

Don Fanucci

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 298 posts


If evolution is true, then why do we find thousands of fossils of fully formed Cambrian phyla withought a trace of an evolutionary process just underneath the Cambrian layer in the pre-cambrian strata?


I don't know specifics, but basically the Cambrian was when hard parts of organisms started to appear (i.e. bone, particularly the exoskeleton). As you've probably noticed, most fossil remains are the remains of hard parts of said organism. If there are no hard parts to be preserved, the chances go way down of that organism ever being preserved. So when you're talking about the ancestors of the first organisms to have a decent chance of being preserved, you're not going to find a whole lot.

It is sort of like trying to reconstruct the early formation of Hebrew scripture through texts, eventually you'll get to a point where the stories were there in time but were preserved in an oral tradition and not through writing. The pre-Cambrian is like the oral traditional period where none of the stories were preserved for later generations, whereas the Cambrian is like taking those oral traditions and putting them on paper where they will be preserved for future generations.

I am curious though, as an aside, if you've ever looked into a lineage that we do actually have fossils for? After all, evolution is about how life changes over time, not how the first organisms came to be.



You are absolutely correct. Chitin, a very common element in living organisms from crabs, to insects, to turtles, provides rigidity and structure as an exoskeleton-like compound especially when calcified. I think it is structurally related to cellulose, another very common substance found mainly in plants.

#10
apologia828

apologia828
  • Members
  • 44 posts

It isn't that there aren't any, but because they aren't hard bodied they are less likely to be preserved. I intentionally didn't say that there weren't any soft bodied organisms, I'm well aware they exist, but they are few and it is because it is much harder for them to be preserved. Scientists usually aren't stupid, there's a reason why they were surprised to find the soft body marella, it is very unlikely that such an organism would have been preserved. I'm sure that you're aware that when an organism dies, usually after a while all that's left is bone as the soft parts decay - thus fossils are usually the remains of hard parts like bone. I think you should really think about the differences of hard and soft parts when it comes to fossilization and decay; it doesn't equal absolutes, but it does make strong correlations. And those correlations are seen in the fossil record from every strata.

I dont think you're understanding me. We have collected thousands of these soft bodied marellas. Thousands. And you're telling me tuat we can't find one transitional for the creatures. I'm 99% positive that if Darwin were able to see all of the numerous things we've collected today he would say and you don't have tons of intermediate fossils? You would expect to find some maybe in another area atleast that maybe branched off and weren't able to advance as well due to the environment. Instead there is no evolutionary trace.

In addition, there are other ways to look for evidence that would support or hurt the idea of all life coming from a common ancestor besides looking for fossil remains. Actually, come to think of it, it is probably one of the worst ways to go about it given that there is just so little information to go by in strata older than the Cambrian - especially once you get to the microbial level. It's my understanding that a lot of information regarding common ancestry comes from genetics. Thanks to genetics, for example, we learned that Archaea aren't a subset of bacteria, rather they have a completely different lineage.


I would still say regardless of what anyone thinks it is a tremendous problem for evolution because what should be there in clear view isn't. Darwinists point out dots but they can't draw the lines. Those points aren't necessarily connected just befause the look similar. I think Darwin also understood the difficulty in fossilization but he still saw this as a significant challenge to his theory and said that if this wasn't cleared up it would be a considerable obstacle for his theory.

Edited by apologia828, 30 July 2011 - 02:39 PM.


#11
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

You are absolutely correct. Chitin, a very common element in living organisms from crabs, to insects, to turtles, provides rigidity and structure as an exoskeleton-like compound especially when calcified. I think it is structurally related to cellulose, another very common substance found mainly in plants.


If I remember right, chitin and cellulose are composed of alpha and beta glucose chains; how they are arranged determines what substance it is.

I dont think you're understanding me. We have collected thousands of these soft bodied marellas. Thousands. And you're telling me tuat we can't find one transitional for the creatures. I'm 99% positive that if Darwin were able to see all of the numerous things we've collected today he would say and you don't have tons of intermediate fossils? You would expect to find some maybe in another area atleast that maybe branched off and weren't able to advance as well due to the environment. Instead there is no evolutionary trace.


I'm not saying that there aren't any transitionals, I'm saying that because of the soft body they are less likely to fossilize thus there are generally more gaps in data. I'm no expert in marrellomorphs, so I can't really comment on it specifically. However, if the ancestral group didn't get preserved how do you expect scientists to find it? I'm willing to say that this is a gap in the evolutionary tree, but remember that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Maybe one day scientists will find the ancestral group, who knows.

Regardless, these are by no means the only organisms where we can extract data from. I agree that Darwin would ask for the transitionals. While we may not be able to show him where marrellomorphs came from, we do have thousands of other transitional fossils out there. When you put all the pieces of the puzzle we have so far together, this marrella problem isn't a problem for the validity of evolution, just another mystery in science that accompanies literally all fields and disciplines of science. I suggest looking up trilobite evolution, as from what I understand it is well documented and got their debut in the Cambrian/pre-Cambrian.

I would still say regardless of what anyone thinks it is a tremendous problem for evolution because what should be there in clear view isn't. Darwinists point out dots but they can't draw the lines. Those points aren't necessarily connected just befause the look similar. I think Darwin also understood the difficulty in fossilization but he still saw this as a significant challenge to his theory and said that if this wasn't cleared up it would be a considerable obstacle for his theory.


Again, when you're talking about the origin of the first species to have a decent chance of being preserved, it is very unlikely that their ancestors would be preserved. Going back to the Hebrew scripture analogy, you're somewhat asking for written documentation from the oral history period that there was an oral history.

Darwin did see transitional fossils as a challenge to his theory (like any good scientist he looked for ways to falsify his theory). However, the transitional problem was cleared up since then. Now the focus is on closing the gaps, not finding fossils to support the theory as scientists have found so many. Lucky for Darwin, before he died he was aware of the transitional fossil archeopteryx, showing the transition from dinosaurs to birds. He even talked about it in his writings and cautioned doubters to his theory that there is much we don't know about the history of life (going back to the idea that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, a type of logical fallacy), and there is a lot out there to discover. While we have unearthed a lot, there is still a lot we have yet to find. And like Darwin, I caution you on pointing to gaps in data and using it as an argument against evolution.

#12
methinkshe

methinkshe

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts


You are absolutely correct. Chitin, a very common element in living organisms from crabs, to insects, to turtles, provides rigidity and structure as an exoskeleton-like compound especially when calcified. I think it is structurally related to cellulose, another very common substance found mainly in plants.


If I remember right, chitin and cellulose are composed of alpha and beta glucose chains; how they are arranged determines what substance it is.

I dont think you're understanding me. We have collected thousands of these soft bodied marellas. Thousands. And you're telling me tuat we can't find one transitional for the creatures. I'm 99% positive that if Darwin were able to see all of the numerous things we've collected today he would say and you don't have tons of intermediate fossils? You would expect to find some maybe in another area atleast that maybe branched off and weren't able to advance as well due to the environment. Instead there is no evolutionary trace.


I'm not saying that there aren't any transitionals, I'm saying that because of the soft body they are less likely to fossilize thus there are generally more gaps in data. I'm no expert in marrellomorphs, so I can't really comment on it specifically. However, if the ancestral group didn't get preserved how do you expect scientists to find it? I'm willing to say that this is a gap in the evolutionary tree, but remember that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Maybe one day scientists will find the ancestral group, who knows.

Regardless, these are by no means the only organisms where we can extract data from. I agree that Darwin would ask for the transitionals. While we may not be able to show him where marrellomorphs came from, we do have thousands of other transitional fossils out there. When you put all the pieces of the puzzle we have so far together, this marrella problem isn't a problem for the validity of evolution, just another mystery in science that accompanies literally all fields and disciplines of science. I suggest looking up trilobite evolution, as from what I understand it is well documented and got their debut in the Cambrian/pre-Cambrian.

I would still say regardless of what anyone thinks it is a tremendous problem for evolution because what should be there in clear view isn't. Darwinists point out dots but they can't draw the lines. Those points aren't necessarily connected just befause the look similar. I think Darwin also understood the difficulty in fossilization but he still saw this as a significant challenge to his theory and said that if this wasn't cleared up it would be a considerable obstacle for his theory.


Again, when you're talking about the origin of the first species to have a decent chance of being preserved, it is very unlikely that their ancestors would be preserved. Going back to the Hebrew scripture analogy, you're somewhat asking for written documentation from the oral history period that there was an oral history.

Darwin did see transitional fossils as a challenge to his theory (like any good scientist he looked for ways to falsify his theory). However, the transitional problem was cleared up since then. Now the focus is on closing the gaps, not finding fossils to support the theory as scientists have found so many. Lucky for Darwin, before he died he was aware of the transitional fossil archeopteryx, showing the transition from dinosaurs to birds. He even talked about it in his writings and cautioned doubters to his theory that there is much we don't know about the history of life (going back to the idea that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, a type of logical fallacy), and there is a lot out there to discover. While we have unearthed a lot, there is still a lot we have yet to find. And like Darwin, I caution you on pointing to gaps in data and using it as an argument against evolution.


http://www.nature.co...ature10288.html


Has Archaeopteryx fallen off its perch?


When is a bird not a bird? When it's Archaeopteryx. In the 150th anniversary of its discovery, the position of Archaeopteryx as the earliest-known bird has been weakened thanks to the discovery of increasing numbers of feathered, bird-like dinosaurs over the past decade and a half. The discovery of another bird-like dinosaur, described by Xu Xing and colleagues, might be the last straw. Although the analysis is tentative, the report suggests that we are about to enter a new era in which Archaeopteryx is considered as distant from the ancestry of modern birds as dinosaurs such as Deinonychus.

Abstract.


Archaeopteryx is widely accepted as being the most basal bird, and accordingly it is regarded as central to understanding avialan origins; however, recent discoveries of derived maniraptorans have weakened the avialan status of Archaeopteryx. Here we report a new Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China. This find further demonstrates that many features formerly regarded as being diagnostic of Avialae, including long and robust forelimbs, actually characterize the more inclusive group Paraves (composed of the avialans and the deinonychosaurs). Notably, adding the new taxon into a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis shifts Archaeopteryx to the Deinonychosauria. Despite only tentative statistical support, this result challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds. If this new phylogenetic hypothesis can be confirmed by further investigation, current assumptions regarding the avialan ancestral condition will need to be re-evaluated.

And therein lies the inherent problem of putting one's trust in science - by definition (scientific progress is built on falsification of former understanding) it constantly changes as new discoveries are made. How can anyone whe believes current scientific knowedge concerning evolution ever know that he has believed the truth concerning origins when, 100 years after his death, new discoveries could completely overturn today's knowledge? That person's whole life and effort would then have been misdirected by belief in false knowledge.

Conversely, God's revelation of Himself in Creation and ultimately in Jesus, never changes.

#13
apologia828

apologia828
  • Members
  • 44 posts


You are absolutely correct. Chitin, a very common element in living organisms from crabs, to insects, to turtles, provides rigidity and structure as an exoskeleton-like compound especially when calcified. I think it is structurally related to cellulose, another very common substance found mainly in plants.


If I remember right, chitin and cellulose are composed of alpha and beta glucose chains; how they are arranged determines what substance it is.

I dont think you're understanding me. We have collected thousands of these soft bodied marellas. Thousands. And you're telling me tuat we can't find one transitional for the creatures. I'm 99% positive that if Darwin were able to see all of the numerous things we've collected today he would say and you don't have tons of intermediate fossils? You would expect to find some maybe in another area atleast that maybe branched off and weren't able to advance as well due to the environment. Instead there is no evolutionary trace.


I'm not saying that there aren't any transitionals, I'm saying that because of the soft body they are less likely to fossilize thus there are generally more gaps in data. I'm no expert in marrellomorphs, so I can't really comment on it specifically. However, if the ancestral group didn't get preserved how do you expect scientists to find it? I'm willing to say that this is a gap in the evolutionary tree, but remember that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Maybe one day scientists will find the ancestral group, who knows.

Regardless, these are by no means the only organisms where we can extract data from. I agree that Darwin would ask for the transitionals. While we may not be able to show him where marrellomorphs came from, we do have thousands of other transitional fossils out there. When you put all the pieces of the puzzle we have so far together, this marrella problem isn't a problem for the validity of evolution, just another mystery in science that accompanies literally all fields and disciplines of science. I suggest looking up trilobite evolution, as from what I understand it is well documented and got their debut in the Cambrian/pre-Cambrian.

I would still say regardless of what anyone thinks it is a tremendous problem for evolution because what should be there in clear view isn't. Darwinists point out dots but they can't draw the lines. Those points aren't necessarily connected just befause the look similar. I think Darwin also understood the difficulty in fossilization but he still saw this as a significant challenge to his theory and said that if this wasn't cleared up it would be a considerable obstacle for his theory.


Again, when you're talking about the origin of the first species to have a decent chance of being preserved, it is very unlikely that their ancestors would be preserved. Going back to the Hebrew scripture analogy, you're somewhat asking for written documentation from the oral history period that there was an oral history.

Darwin did see transitional fossils as a challenge to his theory (like any good scientist he looked for ways to falsify his theory). However, the transitional problem was cleared up since then. Now the focus is on closing the gaps, not finding fossils to support the theory as scientists have found so many. Lucky for Darwin, before he died he was aware of the transitional fossil archeopteryx, showing the transition from dinosaurs to birds. He even talked about it in his writings and cautioned doubters to his theory that there is much we don't know about the history of life (going back to the idea that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, a type of logical fallacy), and there is a lot out there to discover. While we have unearthed a lot, there is still a lot we have yet to find. And like Darwin, I caution you on pointing to gaps in data and using it as an argument against evolution.


Allow me to use an example to illustrate why the absence of evidence is a valid strike against evolution. A theory can often be validated or falsified by making predictions and seeing whether or not those predictions come true. so, imagine that I tell you that I'm a psychic and I am able to predict what is in a room adjacent to the one we are occupying with no previous knowledge of what is inside the room. So using my supposed psychic powers I tell you that in the next room you will not find a rabbit. So, you go in and do a full search (lets say its a completly empty room) and wah-laa! No rabbit. Well, that really doesn't prove anything, correct? But if I told you that in the next room you will absolutely find a yellow snake and we actually find a yellow snake, then it wouldn't absolutely make me a psychic. We would have to see a certain amount of other predictions coming to pass. But if I said something had to be there and it ended up not being there. No snake. Then I would consider that being a huge first strike against me being a psychic. This may be a very primitive example. Lol. But I think you get the point. Its valid because the same type of reasoning has been used to validate or falsify various theories of the past.

Furthermore, your hard bodied theory does not make sense to me when like I already stated we have found embryos in the same place we should find the transitions of the Cambrian animals. If the embryos were fossilized then there is no reason why the others wouldnt be fossilized. I'm not just talking about the Marella. I'm talking about all of them. I've seen the supposed lineages of the trilobytes but the problem here is not what came after but what came before. Darwinists point to dots saying this "probably" came from this which "maybe" came from this etc, etc, but they are just forming dots withought filling in the lines. They don't provide hard evidence for these supposed transitions. You mentioned thousands of transitions but this just isn't true. And if you label fossils like the Archeopteryx a transitional fossil then you are in opposition with some of the leading scientists in the field because most of them pulled the Archeopteryx off the table a long time ago. As you stated, he was supposed to show the transition from dinosaur to bird right? The problem is fossils of ancient birds have been found dating prior to the Archeopteryx, therefore he is not a missing link.

I believe when Darwin was cautioning people about the fact that we didn't know much about the history of life that was a warning to his followers because like he said, the geological record had many gaps that future excavation would reveal. They needed to wait for the empirical dated to be collected. Well, we have been able to dig up thousands upon thousands of fossils from the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian and what can be clearly observed is that Darwin's own objection against his theory still stands firm.

#14
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

Allow me to use an example to illustrate why the absence of evidence is a valid strike against evolution. A theory can often be validated or falsified by making predictions and seeing whether or not those predictions come true. so, imagine that I tell you that I'm a psychic and I am able to predict what is in a room adjacent to the one we are occupying with no previous knowledge of what is inside the room. So using my supposed psychic powers I tell you that in the next room you will not find a rabbit. So, you go in and do a full search (lets say its a completly empty room) and wah-laa! No rabbit. Well, that really doesn't prove anything, correct? But if I told you that in the next room you will absolutely find a yellow snake and we actually find a yellow snake, then it wouldn't absolutely make me a psychic. We would have to see a certain amount of other predictions coming to pass. But if I said something had to be there and it ended up not being there. No snake. Then I would consider that being a huge first strike against me being a psychic. This may be a very primitive example. Lol. But I think you get the point. Its valid because the same type of reasoning has been used to validate or falsify various theories of the past.


I get what you're saying, and if all we had was the Cambrian/pre-Cambrian rock I'd say that you are on to something. Unfortunately there is so much more data out there than that. Again, I'm willing to say that this is a gap in scientific knowledge, but compared to all the other pieces of the puzzle it doesn't pose a problem for the validity of evolution. When you talk about organisms and where they came from, do we have extensive data on the organisms that lived before these? If all we have is a lot of organisms from the same time period, of course we aren't going to find their ancestors, all we are seeing is cousins on the family tree from the same reunion.

You do bring up an important point, the idea of multiple tests on any given theory. In the case of evolution, there have been so many verified tests that it has become one of the strongest theories in science. The prediction of Tiktaalik is a great example of evolution's predictive power.

Furthermore, your hard bodied theory does not make sense to me when like I already stated we have found embryos in the same place we should find the transitions of the Cambrian animals. If the embryos were fossilized then there is no reason why the others wouldnt be fossilized. I'm not just talking about the Marella. I'm talking about all of them.


Well it isn't a theory that soft-bodies and soft parts of organisms are less likely to be preserved, it's a fact. That doesn't mean that we don't find soft bodies, only that they are rarer. As our knowledge increases in tandem with technology the ratios might change and we will find more soft bodies, but the correlation is pretty much set in stone.

I've seen the supposed lineages of the trilobytes but the problem here is not what came after but what came before.


Are you saying that trilobites have evolved over time?

Darwinists point to dots saying this "probably" came from this which "maybe" came from this etc, etc, but they are just forming dots withought filling in the lines. They don't provide hard evidence for these supposed transitions. You mentioned thousands of transitions but this just isn't true. And if you label fossils like the Archeopteryx a transitional fossil then you are in opposition with some of the leading scientists in the field because most of them pulled the Archeopteryx off the table a long time ago. As you stated, he was supposed to show the transition from dinosaur to bird right? The problem is fossils of ancient birds have been found dating prior to the Archeopteryx, therefore he is not a missing link.


Archeopteryx is, and has always been, considered a transitional fossil. It's importance and significance, especially regarding the lineage of modern birds, has waned over the years, and now most don't think it is a direct ancestor to modern birds, but that doesn't negate its transitional status. Despite popular belief, a transitional fossil doesn't have to be a direct ancestor, and more often than not transitional fossils are usually consider cousins of more modern groups than direct ancestors. Human evolution, for example, has plenty of transitional fossils, however very few of the species/sub-species found are considered direct ancestors to us. Another thing that is hard for most laymen to get is the idea that transitional fossils don't have to be the earliest known. Transitional fossils are more about patterns than determining direct links between ancestral and future species. While timing does play a part, the rigidity of the timeline is less important (perhaps "different" is a better description) than what most people think.

I believe when Darwin was cautioning people about the fact that we didn't know much about the history of life that was a warning to his followers because like he said, the geological record had many gaps that future excavation would reveal. They needed to wait for the empirical dated to be collected. Well, we have been able to dig up thousands upon thousands of fossils from the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian and what can be clearly observed is that Darwin's own objection against his theory still stands firm.


I suppose it could be seen as a warning of not getting dogmatic with his theory, but I think that is a bit of a stretch. One way to look at it I guess is that Darwin made some observations, developed some hypotheses about natural selection, they panned out, so he started developing a model/theory about how evolution works. But in order for that hypothesis/theory to be verified on large scales, more evidence was needed.

I'm curious though as to your near obsession with the Cambrian era. It's almost seems like you're saying none of the data we have about post-Cambrian life counts. While the Cambrian is certainly a piece of the puzzle, one of the more elusive pieces at that, we have thousands of other pieces that do support evolution. One way to falsify evolution is to find an out of place fossil. So for example if you find a mammal, say a rabbit, in the Cambrian that would be an out of place fossil and cast doubt on the theory of evolution. But when we look at the Cambrian, all we see is primitive life compared to latter eras, another prediction of evolution that is correct.

#15
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts

What about embryos? Do you think those would be able to survive being fossilized? We have micriscopic embryos just under the cambrian layer in China, for example. Not only that but the famous "marella" of the Cambrian was a soft-bodied specimen which is what was a tremendous surprise to some of the paleontologists excavating the burgess shale in Canada.


Since I really don't know that much about the Cambrian period, I did a little snooping around to see what I could find. As it turns out, the Burgess shale in Canada, along with the Chengjiang of China (I assume this is what you're referring to), is something known as a "Konservat-Lagerstätten". It is a type of sedimentary deposit that is rich in the preservation of soft bodies via impressions and/or casts in the ground. These types of deposits are very rare, but very important in piecing together the history of life as it gives us a unique window into the past by preserving what would normally be destroyed.

So please keep in mind that the sites in Canada and China that you talk about are the rare exception when it comes to preserving soft bodies, and that the preservation is in impressions and casts, not fossilized bone.

#16
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Great job starting this thread. I'd like to add another example that seems to be the big unanswered question for Darwinists. I actually asked one of my university professors this question (since he mentioned the Lucy fossil as a missing link), and he completely dodged my question, which was by email. I asked a number of other Darwinists and have yet to receive a straight answer. Here it is:

If evolution is true, then why do we find thousands of fossils of fully formed Cambrian phyla withought a trace of an evolutionary process just underneath the Cambrian layer in the pre-cambrian strata? And I'm not asking for examples of small worms previously found that these species may have evolved from. No. I'm simply asking the same question Darwin hinself asked. see, from an evolutionary perspective I should be able to predict that given the plentiful amount of fossils found in the Cambrian, if the theory is true, I should find just below an evolutionary process showing the transformation from edicarian fauna or worms (I've heard both), to trilobyte, amolacaris, etc.

The interesting thing is as evolutionist himself Alfred S. Romer stated, "If we were to expect to find ancestors too, below this (Cambrian strata) are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors...would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of life, and the general picture could reasonably be consistent with the idea of special creatition.


Right on! Most evolutionists have a pat answer that denies the facts. Here are a couple of links giving more explicit information on the Cambrian Explosion:
http://www.straight-...n/explosion.htm
http://www.learntheb...s_evolution.htm

#17
Don Fanucci

Don Fanucci

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 298 posts


Great job starting this thread. I'd like to add another example that seems to be the big unanswered question for Darwinists. I actually asked one of my university professors this question (since he mentioned the Lucy fossil as a missing link), and he completely dodged my question, which was by email. I asked a number of other Darwinists and have yet to receive a straight answer. Here it is:

If evolution is true, then why do we find thousands of fossils of fully formed Cambrian phyla withought a trace of an evolutionary process just underneath the Cambrian layer in the pre-cambrian strata? And I'm not asking for examples of small worms previously found that these species may have evolved from. No. I'm simply asking the same question Darwin hinself asked. see, from an evolutionary perspective I should be able to predict that given the plentiful amount of fossils found in the Cambrian, if the theory is true, I should find just below an evolutionary process showing the transformation from edicarian fauna or worms (I've heard both), to trilobyte, amolacaris, etc.

The interesting thing is as evolutionist himself Alfred S. Romer stated, "If we were to expect to find ancestors too, below this (Cambrian strata) are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors...would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of life, and the general picture could reasonably be consistent with the idea of special creatition.


Right on! Most evolutionists have a pat answer that denies the facts. Here are a couple of links giving more explicit information on the Cambrian Explosion:
http://www.straight-...n/explosion.htm
http://www.learntheb...s_evolution.htm



Your "expert": "The facts of paleontology seem to support creation rather than evolution. All the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossiliferous strata. (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations, indicating that they were all created at almost the same time." - David Enock Associate Professor of Biology. BS Yeshiva College, MS Hunter College

David Enock is a faculty member at a community college, so he is not doing any research. Where did he draw his conclusion from?

#18
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts



Great job starting this thread. I'd like to add another example that seems to be the big unanswered question for Darwinists. I actually asked one of my university professors this question (since he mentioned the Lucy fossil as a missing link), and he completely dodged my question, which was by email. I asked a number of other Darwinists and have yet to receive a straight answer. Here it is:

If evolution is true, then why do we find thousands of fossils of fully formed Cambrian phyla withought a trace of an evolutionary process just underneath the Cambrian layer in the pre-cambrian strata? And I'm not asking for examples of small worms previously found that these species may have evolved from. No. I'm simply asking the same question Darwin hinself asked. see, from an evolutionary perspective I should be able to predict that given the plentiful amount of fossils found in the Cambrian, if the theory is true, I should find just below an evolutionary process showing the transformation from edicarian fauna or worms (I've heard both), to trilobyte, amolacaris, etc.

The interesting thing is as evolutionist himself Alfred S. Romer stated, "If we were to expect to find ancestors too, below this (Cambrian strata) are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors...would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of life, and the general picture could reasonably be consistent with the idea of special creatition.


Right on! Most evolutionists have a pat answer that denies the facts. Here are a couple of links giving more explicit information on the Cambrian Explosion:
http://www.straight-...n/explosion.htm
http://www.learntheb...s_evolution.htm



Your "expert": "The facts of paleontology seem to support creation rather than evolution. All the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossiliferous strata. (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations, indicating that they were all created at almost the same time." - David Enock Associate Professor of Biology. BS Yeshiva College, MS Hunter College

David Enock is a faculty member at a community college, so he is not doing any research. Where did he draw his conclusion from?


Probably from the facts as presented.

#19
OldEnglishSheepdog

OldEnglishSheepdog

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,380 posts



Bounded Variations

Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]


C'mon folks. This was easy to look up and again shows the danger of "creation science" being driven by non experts (Walt Brown is YEC with a background in engineering).



Don's always committing the ad hominem fallacy, trying to show that if you're not part of the Priesthood of Scientific elite you're not permitted to question the God of Naturalism, so just hush up and bow down to Evolution.

But he does have a point - what would someone with a background in engineering know about whether or not a biochemical machine was engineered?

#20
OldEnglishSheepdog

OldEnglishSheepdog

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,380 posts

Your "expert": "The facts of paleontology seem to support creation rather than evolution. All the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossiliferous strata. (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations, indicating that they were all created at almost the same time." - David Enock Associate Professor of Biology. BS Yeshiva College, MS Hunter College

David Enock is a faculty member at a community college, so he is not doing any research. Where did he draw his conclusion from?


See? Attacking the speaker and not the point.

Once again, if the education system teaches according to evolution, you pass by submitting to truth according to evolutionary interpretation and if you don't you're considered to misunderstand the reality of biology, geology, etc. So for those who submit to evolutionary training, and are employed to research according to those assumptions, how is it a valid argument that they subscribe to evolution.

It's like having a bouncer checking ID at the door of a bar and then once inside concluding that minors aren't capable of drinking.




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network