disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[ARGOSY]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes, we have a long history of multicellular organisms, long before the Cambrian.   Since the evolution of full body exoskeletons coincides with the "explosion", it appears that it was due to the sudden ability to evolve specific niches.

Or the appearance of multiple fully formed organisms without fossil precursor points to a seeding of earth by a higher power. Why do you prefer the assumption of evolution when multiple organisms appeared without fossil precursor? 

[one.opinion]

11 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Or the appearance of multiple fully formed organisms without fossil precursor

I haven’t responded much recently within the last day because I’ve been busy. However, I do know I presented an article that showed fossil precursors to many Cambrian organisms. There are common misperceptions about Cambrian organisms and the idea that there are no precursor organisms is a big one.

[The Barbarian]

12 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Or the appearance of multiple fully formed organisms without fossil precursor points to a seeding of earth by a higher power.

Since we have all sorts of prokaryotic precursors to the Ediacaran biota, there's no need to imagine a "space alien", of the sort the "intelligence design" people think was involved.   God created the Earth, and the earth brought forth life as He commanded.   Why not just let it be His way?

12 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Why do you prefer the assumption of evolution

Since it's directly observed happening, "assumption" would be the wrong word.    Possibly, you're confusing "evolution" with a particular consequence of evolution?

12 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

when multiple organisms appeared without fossil precursor? 

Now, that's an assumption.   And it's wrong.   Would you like me to show you some of them?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

13 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I'm not referring to what usually happens, I'm referring to what can happen,

Evolution depends on what usually happens.   In biology every rule has an exception, including this one.  

 

[ARGOSY]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I haven’t responded much recently within the last day because I’ve been busy. However, I do know I presented an article that showed fossil precursors to many Cambrian organisms. There are common misperceptions about Cambrian organisms and the idea that there are no precursor organisms is a big one.

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. 

[ARGOSY]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Evolution depends on what usually happens.   In biology every rule has an exception, including this one.  

 

You gave an example of what you thought was a good example of evolution in action. A new novel gene. I am disputing it, there are numerous ways to interpret the evidence. Unless you have any other examples, or can show more convincing detail of that example, we are left without any evidence for the TOE as an explanation for extant species. 

 

A creation event around the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian where fossil records show the appearance of nearly every phyla fully formed and without fossil precursor, followed by some adaptation /speciation within clades is what we observe. As predicted by evolutionary processes, we can both agree on speciation within clades since then, via allele specialisation, and entropy. (I agree on many evolutionary processes since creation, except the appearance of additional unique novel genes) 

 

I see no advantage that the TOE has over creationism in the actual evidence. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Since we have all sorts of prokaryotic precursors to the Ediacaran biota, there's no need to imagine a "space alien", of the sort the "intelligence design" people think was involved.   God created the Earth, and the earth brought forth life as He commanded.   Why not just let it be His way?

Since it's directly observed happening, "assumption" would be the wrong word.    Possibly, you're confusing "evolution" with a particular consequence of evolution?

Now, that's an assumption.   And it's wrong.   Would you like me to show you some of them?

 

 

Your argument is not with me, but with Darwin. He recognized the flaw in his theory. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,^[14] and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one of the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.^[15] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points

 

There have been further explanations of this observed situation put forward over time, but there remains an extreme lack of evidence of actual intermediate fossils prior to the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian.

 

The fact that nearly every phyla appeared fully formed, without fossil precursor gives creationism a severe evidence advantage over the TOE. 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

You gave an example of what you thought was a good example of evolution in action. A new novel gene. I am disputing it, [/quote]
 

 

Just one case of many.    Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means.   What do you think it means?

there are numerous ways to interpret the evidence.

Simple denial, as you did, is one of the more common, particularly when the evidence is as compelling as it is in this case.

As you now realize, there are many documented cases of novel genes.  One of the more interesting ones is the Milano Mutation, which codes for a unique lipoprotein, giving immunity to hardening of the arteries.  We have been able to trace it back to the individual in which the mutation occurred.   Would you like to learn about that?

Another is the EPAS1 gene, found in Tibetans, that allows them to thrive at very high altitudes.

The literature has many, many such cases.    Again, the problem seems to be that you don't know what "evolution" means in biology.   What do you think it means?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

The fact that nearly every phyla appeared fully formed, without fossil precursor gives creationism a severe evidence advantage over the TOE. 

The singular of "phyla" is "phylum."    And you're wrong.  For example, vertebrates only came after chordates, which appeared in cambrian.   Arthropods were preceded by Ediacaran fossils like Spriggina:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Spriggina_Floundensi_4.png

It has some features of arthropods, but also those of polychaete worms, which are genetically related to arthropods, but not arthropods themselves.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

24 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

 

Just one case of many.    Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means.   What do you think it means?

 

 

Simple denial, as you did, is one of the more common, particularly when the evidence is as compelling as it is in this case.

As you now realize, there are many documented cases of novel genes.  One of the more interesting ones is the Milano Mutation, which codes for a unique lipoprotein, giving immunity to hardening of the arteries.  We have been able to trace it back to the individual in which the mutation occurred.   Would you like to learn about that?

Another is the EPAS1 gene, found in Tibetans, that allows them to thrive at very high altitudes.

The literature has many, many such cases.    Again, the problem seems to be that you don't know what "evolution" means in biology.   What do you think it means?

 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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