disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

The Small Shellies of the late Ediacaran are of one phyla. The Early Cambrian shows the appearance of nearly every other phyla without fossil precursor. 

If I remember correctly that article was unconvincing.

I understand the difficulty of releasing hypotheses that support your world view. The process of transitioning from a Young Earth Creationist to accepting the scientific evidence for evolution was a long process that unfolded over several years as piece by piece, what I was told as "truth" by people like Duane Gish was not actually truth, at all.

It is true that there are not huge numbers of fossils leading up to the Cambrian era fossils. However, there are two points to emphasize. One, soft bodied organisms fossilize at a VERY low rate, so the low number of fossils is certainly not unexpected. Second, there is a world of difference between "no precursor fossils" and "a small number of fossils". Again, I understand the difficulty of coming to grips with the evidence that there is significant evidence for multiple groups of organisms leading into the Cambrian period, but the evidence is present, regardless.

From the article I posted previously:

Quote

A systematic trace-fossil survey of Ediacaran–Cambrian sections worldwide, involving the construction of a comprehensive database (see the electronic supplementary material), demonstrates that the record of animal–sediment interactions across the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary is far more continuous than the body-fossil record, particularly with respect to that of soft-bodied organisms.

The animal-sediment interaction fossils are powerful pieces of evidence for a wide variety of organisms in the Ediacaran, even though fossils of the actual organisms are limited. The supplementary material for the article contains dozens of references for different fossil studies - some are body fossils, while most are of the animal-sediment interaction variety.

Here is another example of a find that was reported in Nature just last month:

https://www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-019-02556-x/d41586-019-02556-x.pdf

From the report:

Quote

Some Ediacaran organisms have been recognized as animals despite their peculiar anatomy, suggesting that animal life began millions of years before the Cambrian explosion.

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Can this explain the existence of multiple organisms with many more novel genes than a so-called original organism. No. That process is not observed.

I frankly don't understand this argument. Duplication and divergence is observed in the molecular record (from DNA and protein sequences) and easily explains the origin of both new and novel genes. With the time spans involved, it is perfectly sensible for genes to diverge to the point to no longer exhibit enough sequence similarity to be considered part of the gene family. This is a very good explanation for the presence of larger numbers of genes in modern organisms.

You can read much more about gene families that arise from duplication and divergence in this wiki article and the linked references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_family

Additionally, I have also included a link discussing the development of de novo genes. Finally, there are even other mechanisms that can add new genes (horizontal gene transfer, transposition, and others). This is simply not a good argument against evolution.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Evolution definitely occurs. Sure a point mutation can add fitness, a deletion can add fitness, changes to allele frequencies can add fitness. Survival of the fittest is an observed process. To prove that a point mutation adds fitness fits in with a creation event then adaptation within clades. 

Which is all that Darwin's theory needs.  

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Can this explain the existence of multiple organisms with many more novel genes than a so-called original organism.

Yes.   Demonstrably so.   Gene duplication, followed by mutation, is a simple way.   For most eukaryotes, polyploidy is also a demonstrated way for this to happen.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Neither is there a completely satisfactory explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. 

Since a diverse group of complex multicellular organisms existed before the Cambrian, it's really not an issue.   The great evolution of diversity within phyla coincides with the evolution of complete exoskeletons, which permitted a much larger variety of lifestyles. 

Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?

https://www.coursehero.com/file/17418814/Gould-Sigmoid-Fraud/

[The Barbarian]

48 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The Small Shellies of the late Ediacaran are of one phyla.

Phylum.   The singular of "phyla" is "phylum."   And no, they are diverse.  

The small shelly fauna, small shelly fossils (SSF), or early skeletal fossils (ESF)^[1] are mineralized fossils, many only a few millimetres long, with a nearly continuous record from the latest stages of the Ediacaran to the end of the Early Cambrian Period. They are very diverse, and there is no formal definition of "small shelly fauna" or "small shelly fossils". Almost all are from earlier rocks than more familiar fossils such as trilobites. Since most SSFs were preserved by being covered quickly with phosphate and this method of preservation is mainly limited to the Late Ediacaran and Early Cambrian periods, the animals that made them may actually have arisen earlier and persisted after this time span.

Some of the fossils represent the entire skeletons of small organisms, including the mysterious Cloudina and some snail-like molluscs. However, the bulk of the fossils are fragments or disarticulated remains of larger organisms, including sponges, molluscs, slug-like halkieriids, brachiopods, echinoderms, and onychophoran-like organisms that may have been close to the ancestors of arthropods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_shelly_fauna

One major group:

Cloudinids are important in the history of animal evolution for two reasons. They are among the earliest and most abundant of the small shelly fossils with mineralized skeletons, and therefore feature in the debate about why such skeletons first appeared in the Late Ediacaran. The most widely supported answer is that their shells are a defense against predators, as some Cloudina specimens from China bear the marks of multiple attacks, which suggests they survived at least a few of them. The holes made by predators are approximately proportional to the size of the Cloudina specimens, and Sinotubulites fossils, which are often found in the same beds, have so far shown no such holes. These two points suggest that predators attacked in a selective manner, and the evolutionary arms race which this indicates is commonly cited as a cause of the Cambrian explosion of animal diversity and complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudinidae

 

 

[ARGOSY]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Phylum.   The singular of "phyla" is "phylum."   And no, they are diverse.  

The small shelly fauna, small shelly fossils (SSF), or early skeletal fossils (ESF)^[1] are mineralized fossils, many only a few millimetres long, with a nearly continuous record from the latest stages of the Ediacaran to the end of the Early Cambrian Period. They are very diverse, and there is no formal definition of "small shelly fauna" or "small shelly fossils". Almost all are from earlier rocks than more familiar fossils such as trilobites. Since most SSFs were preserved by being covered quickly with phosphate and this method of preservation is mainly limited to the Late Ediacaran and Early Cambrian periods, the animals that made them may actually have arisen earlier and persisted after this time span.

Some of the fossils represent the entire skeletons of small organisms, including the mysterious Cloudina and some snail-like molluscs. However, the bulk of the fossils are fragments or disarticulated remains of larger organisms, including sponges, molluscs, slug-like halkieriids, brachiopods, echinoderms, and onychophoran-like organisms that may have been close to the ancestors of arthropods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_shelly_fauna

One major group:

Cloudinids are important in the history of animal evolution for two reasons. They are among the earliest and most abundant of the small shelly fossils with mineralized skeletons, and therefore feature in the debate about why such skeletons first appeared in the Late Ediacaran. The most widely supported answer is that their shells are a defense against predators, as some Cloudina specimens from China bear the marks of multiple attacks, which suggests they survived at least a few of them. The holes made by predators are approximately proportional to the size of the Cloudina specimens, and Sinotubulites fossils, which are often found in the same beds, have so far shown no such holes. These two points suggest that predators attacked in a selective manner, and the evolutionary arms race which this indicates is commonly cited as a cause of the Cambrian explosion of animal diversity and complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudinidae

 

 

Thank you for acknowledging that there was the sudden explosion of animal diversity and complexity shortly after the Ediacaran. Many evolutionists avoid the word complexity. 

Have you got any precise sequence of  intermediates between the small shelleys of the late Ediacaran and any of the more complex organisms that appear in the early Cambrian? 

[ARGOSY]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Which is all that Darwin's theory needs.  

Yes.   Demonstrably so.   Gene duplication, followed by mutation, is a simple way.   For most eukaryotes, polyploidy is also a demonstrated way for this to happen.

Since a diverse group of complex multicellular organisms existed before the Cambrian, it's really not an issue.   The great evolution of diversity within phyla coincides with the evolution of complete exoskeletons, which permitted a much larger variety of lifestyles. 

Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?

https://www.coursehero.com/file/17418814/Gould-Sigmoid-Fraud/

You have still failed to give any example of a duplication followed by a mutation creating a new active coding gene which adds to fitness. Evolutionists act as if this theorized process is a reality. Truth is an active duplication generally reduces fitness via excess proteins, as per my previous example of low IQ being caused by a common duplication. You say that isn't usually the case, I dont know where you get that from, please provide statistics. There are many examples where duplications in the genome are a big problem, even Downs Syndrome shows this. 

[ARGOSY]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I frankly don't understand this argument. Duplication and divergence is observed in the molecular record (from DNA and protein sequences) and easily explains the origin of both new and novel genes. With the time spans involved, it is perfectly sensible for genes to diverge to the point to no longer exhibit enough sequence similarity to be considered part of the gene family. This is a very good explanation for the presence of larger numbers of genes in modern organisms.

You can read much more about gene families that arise from duplication and divergence in this wiki article and the linked references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_family

Additionally, I have also included a link discussing the development of de novo genes. Finally, there are even other mechanisms that can add new genes (horizontal gene transfer, transposition, and others). This is simply not a good argument against evolution.

You say that you have additionally included another link. I only see one link in your post. 

The problem is that you guys fail to get into a creationist mindset, you therefore interpret DNA study as if evolution had already been proven. This when you examine the difference between two genomes eg human and chimp, the unique genes in both are seen as natural evidence for the gene adding process of complexity over time. From a creationist perspective we need to see the TOE proved first, before you can assume unique novel genes evolved merely because two similar genomes have some differences. 

I saw no evidence of that in the Wikipedia article. 

I agree with evolutionary processes since creation which reflect a predictable entropy and speciation within clades since then. But actual evidence of an actual duplication event that created a new novel coding gene remains non-existent. 

For example, the example that Barbarian put forward of one gene of two functions  duplicating into two more specialized genes of specialized function, could easily have been the other way around, yet evolutionary confirmation bias sometimes jumps to conclusions too quickly. The eye cone example was neither here nor there for proving a novel gene in comparison to being created like that. 

Everything looks like a massive creation event of many species, followed by predictable entropy. How can the TOE disprove that? It can't unless you find decent intermediates between the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian. And also intermediates which show the evolution of small shellies. 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Which is all that Darwin's theory needs.  

Yes.   Demonstrably so.   Gene duplication, followed by mutation, is a simple way.   For most eukaryotes, polyploidy is also a demonstrated way for this to happen.

Since a diverse group of complex multicellular organisms existed before the Cambrian, it's really not an issue.   The great evolution of diversity within phyla coincides with the evolution of complete exoskeletons, which permitted a much larger variety of lifestyles. 

Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?

https://www.coursehero.com/file/17418814/Gould-Sigmoid-Fraud/

That article does not deny the Cambrian Explosion, nor does it give us intermediate fossils to show there was ANY evolving. Once again evolutionists assume the theory is truth and start guessing the reasons why  so many organisms just appeared. No matter how clever the guesswork, creation has the advantage, because that is what is observed, the sudden appearance of huge numbers of species without fossil precursor. 

The logic that if evolution is true, it would have reached a natural tipping point of an explosion of life at some point, does nothing to prove if evolution is true. That logic merely gives a weak alternative to the observed creation event in the fossil record. 

 

Perhaps the explosion itself was merely the predictable out- come of a process inexorably set in motion by an earlier Precambrian event. In such a case, we would not have to believe that early Cambrian times were “special" in any way; the cause of the explosion would be sought in an earlier event that initiated the evolution of complex life. I have recently been persuaded that this new perspective is probably correct. 

 

Perhaps/probably. Did he ever consider that perhaps probably there's a God who created fully formed life, and that explains the evidence? 

Edited October 13, 2019 by ARGOSY

[The Barbarian]

46 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

That article does not deny the Cambrian Explosion, nor does it give us intermediate fossils to show there was ANY evolving.

 

The Cambrian explosion, as you have seen, is a continuation of things that began in the Ediacaran.    At the point that organism evolved complete exoskeletons (there were partially-covered transitional forms in the Ediacaran) a sudden development of all sorts of new body plans in the arthropods and related phyla began.   That's not surprising.  We've seen that before, among horses, insects, flowering plants, and so on.

50 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Once again evolutionists assume the theory is truth and start guessing the reasons why  so many organisms just appeared.

Nope.   As you now see, Darwin's prediction of innumerable transitions has been verified.    Even many YE creationists admit that.   Would you like to see some more of them?

51 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

No matter how clever the guesswork, creation has the advantage, because that is what is observed, 

Since evolution is God's creation, that's  moot point.   

52 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

the sudden appearance of huge numbers of species without fossil precursor. 

Let's test that belief.   Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and then let's see if there are any transitional forms.    If you would like, pick several cases where two major groups are said to have a common ancestor.

53 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

The logic that if evolution is true, it would have reached a natural tipping point of an explosion of life at some point, does nothing to prove if evolution is true.

It merely verifies Darwin's theory.   Would you like me to show you how?

54 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Perhaps the explosion itself was merely the predictable out- come of a process inexorably set in motion by an earlier Precambrian event.

In the sense that God created a world in which such things can evolve.

55 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Did he ever consider that perhaps probably there's a God who created fully formed life, and that explains the evidence? 

An agnostic, Gould speculated that evolution might be the way that a Creator chose to share it all with others. (such as us)   However, the fossil, genetic, and biochemical evidence shows that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

Might not have been that way at the beginning, but if not, only one kind of life survived to fill the world.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The Cambrian explosion, as you have seen, is a continuation of things that began in the Ediacaran.    At the point that organism evolved complete exoskeletons (there were partially-covered transitional forms in the Ediacaran) a sudden development of all sorts of new body plans in the arthropods and related phyla began.   That's not surprising.  We've seen that before, among horses, insects, flowering plants, and so on.

Nope.   As you now see, Darwin's prediction of innumerable transitions has been verified.    Even many YE creationists admit that.   Would you like to see some more of them?

Since evolution is God's creation, that's  moot point.   

Let's test that belief.   Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and then let's see if there are any transitional forms.    If you would like, pick several cases where two major groups are said to have a common ancestor.

It merely verifies Darwin's theory.   Would you like me to show you how?

In the sense that God created a world in which such things can evolve.

An agnostic, Gould speculated that evolution might be the way that a Creator chose to share it all with others. (such as us)   However, the fossil, genetic, and biochemical evidence shows that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

Might not have been that way at the beginning, but if not, only one kind of life survived to fill the world.

 

 

You say "as I have seen", but I haven't yet seen any precise intermediates between the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian. You havent shown a sequence between any 2 organisms. 

We also need a sequence before then, to show where the late Ediacaran fossils come from.