Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

a reply to: Quadrivium

I used to but It just wastes my time.
I admire Barcs for his patience and good on him.
Iam out for good on these threads no amount of evidence will change peoples minds about it.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Quadrivium

I used to but It just wastes my time.
I admire Barcs for his patience and good on him.
Iam out for good on these threads no amount of evidence will change peoples minds about it.

You may not believe this but it is possible to have civil discussion about this where both side learn something.
I know because I have done it.
There are just so many that use evolution as a tool, they don't know the science, they just try to use it to disprove Creation.
The truth is EVOLUTION HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION.
I actually enjoy discussions about what happened after Creation.
I understand how the concept of evolution works. I even agree with a lot of it.
We can see all around us that there is speciation.
We know as environments change, that life changes with it.
The problem I (and most Creationists, I believe) have is the term coined "macroevolution" and the science behind it.
It is built apon lots of speculation and assumptions, yet many people take it as settled science.
Quad

I find the man-made practice of religion to be illogical.

Evolutionary theory has way fewer holes in it than creationist theory does and leaves itself open for correction as new discoveries are made.

Religion demands blind faith in the un-provable which flies in the face of any logical thinking person.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

Why is it an elephant in the room?

Because the explosion challenges the notion of natural selection being sufficient for the sudden increase in the amount of species, diversity and informational development.

This was addressed in detail already. This is why people get irked. Why do you feel that 60-80 million years is not enough time to account for the diversity? The cambrian explosion wasn't sudden. In a fast paced high pressure environment that's constantly changing, natural selection is accelerated. Look at how much the diversity of life has changed in just 65 million years since the last mega extinction level event. Can you break down the numbers and show why this cannot happen? You need to present an actual argument. Just saying, "Cambrian explosion" doesn't raise any valid logical problems with evolution in the least. Make an argument.

Ok then:

• "Nobody seriously doubts that the sudden appearance in the fossil record of numerous marine animal groups of both familiar and enigmatic type close to the base of the Cambrian reflects one of the important events in the history of the biosphere." (R.A. Fortey, D.E.G. Briggs, M.A. Wills "The Cambrian evolutionary cexplosion': decoupling cladogenesis from morphological disparity," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Vol. 57: 13-33 (1996), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "Beautifully preserved organisms from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan, southern China, document the sudden appearance of diverse metazoan body plans at phylum or subphylum levels, which were either short-lived or have continued to the present day." (J.Y. Chen, "The sudden appearance of diverse animal body plans during the Cambrian explosion," International Journal of Developmental Biology, Vol. 53: 733-51 (2009), emphases added.)
  
  
• "...the sudden expansion in phyla of the Cambrian explosion" (Lynn Helena Caporale, "Putting together the pieces: evolutionary mechanisms at work within genomes," BioEssays, Vol. 31: 700-702 (2009), emphasis added.)
  
  
• A college-level invertebrate biology textbook states: "Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, "fully formed" and identifiable as to their phylum, in the Cambrian .... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to understanding the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla..." (R. S. K. Barnes, P. Calow, P. J. W. Olive, D. W. Golding, and J. I. Spicer, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, 3rd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 2001), pp. 9-10, emphasis added.)
  
  
• "...the sudden appearance of a near complete diversity of animal body plans in the fossil record around 530-520 million years ago" (T. Vavouri and B. Lehner, "Conserved noncoding elements and the evolution of animal body plans," BioEssays, Vol. 31: 727-735 (July 31, 2009), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "...the profound morphological gaps among the major groups, set against the background of sudden appearances in the fossil record of many novel taxa and the absence of easily recognizable transitional forms" (Richard K. Grosberg, "Out on a Limb: Arthropod Origins," Science, Vol. 250: 632-633 (November 2, 1990), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "Darwin recognized that the sudden appearance of animal fossils in the Cambrian posed a problem for his theory of natural selection. ... Recent geochronological studies have reinforced the impression of a 'big bang of animal evolution' by narrowing the temporal window of apparent divergences to just a few million years." (Gregory A. Wray, Jeffrey S. Levinton, Leo H. Shapiro, "Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian Divergences," Science, Vol. 74: 568-573 (October 25, 1996), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "The apparently sudden origin of animal phyla has contributed to the view that phyla represent a fundamental level of organization." (Lindell Bromham, "What can DNA Tell us About the Cambrian Explosion?," Integrative and Comparative Biology, Vol. 43: 148-156 (2003), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "The fossil record of metazoa shows a sudden expansion at around 550-530 million years ago." (Science, Vol. 288: 929 (May 12, 2000), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "This paucity of metazoan fossils in the strata of Earth is broken by the sudden appearance of highly developed metazoan fossils in the Cambrian, a pattern colloquially referred to as the Cambrian evolutionary 'explosion'." (Christopher W. Wheat and Niklas Wahlberg, "Phylogenomic Insights into the Cambrian Explosion, the Colonization of Land and the Evolution of Flight in Arthropoda," Systematic Biology, Vol. 62: 93-109 (2013), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "[T]he fossil record displays the sudden appearance of intracellular detail and the 32 phyla." (Michael A. Crawford, C. Leigh Broadhurst, Martin Guest, Atulya Nagar, Yiqun Wang, Kebreab Ghebremeskel, Walter F. Schmidt, "A quantumtheory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution," Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, Vol. 88: 5-13 (2013), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma." (Eugene V. Koonin, "The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution," Biology Direct, Vol. 2: 21 (2007), emphasis added.)
  
  
• "At the beginning of the Cambrian, however, life took a sudden turn toward the complex. In a few million years -- the equivalent of a geological instant -- an ark's worth of sophisticated body types filled the seas. This biological burst, dubbed the Cambrian explosion, produced the first skeletons and hard shells, antennae and legs, joints and jaws. It set the evolutionary stage for all that followed by giving rise to most of the major phyla known on Earth today. Even our own chordate ancestors got their start during this long-past era." (Richard Monastersky, Science News, Vol. 146 (9) (August 27, 1994), emphases added.)

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: vasaga

I would be delighted to continue an on topic discussion about the nature of associated methods of knowledge acquisition, but your semantic nitpicking is not going to cut it.
Are you going to answer my questions?

No I'm not. Why? Because:

originally posted by: flyingfish
Lol.. Your only drive is to conform to creationist pseudoscience! you yourself prove this with every post.

You lose your right of any mature discussion with such a statement. I'm anything but a conformist. I'll challenge religious people just as hard as I challenge your ideological evo-BS.

originally posted by: tsingtao
thanks for the civil response, barcs.

there is a crapload of species alive today and some disappearing everyday.

it's logical to believe that we would have seen some macro-evo or some written account over the last few millenia, of animals that were once there in the past with humans.

I have to stop you right here. Macro evolution is just a description for evolution over long periods of time. There is nothing different about it. Humans have documented history for the last 10,000 years give or take. What on earth makes you believe that we would have witnessed and documented "macro" evolution first hand in that incredibly short time period? Most evolution deniers claim the Cambrian explosion (a 50 million year + process) was sudden. Scientifically we've only been studying evolution for 150 years and have witnessed speciation, which is the first step of "macro" evolution. The evolution of a new species. The only way to witness long term evolution, is to study the fossil record.

or living side by side with their "ancestors" today.

Domesticated cats and dogs do not count? We have drastically affected their genetic lines over time. Dogs evolved from wolves because humans were able to domesticate the tamer ones, so humans became natural selection for that particular trait.

a reply to: vasaga

LMAO! It wasn't sudden. Sudden is a relative term because compared to 3.5 billion years of life, 50 million is short. In relative to our lifespan it is extremely long, and plenty of time for evolution as can be shown numerous times throughout earth's history. You haven't made any arguments against evolution yet. You have said the Cambrian explosion was too fast or "sudden". Please explain why. Break down the math instead of arguing semantics about word definitions. Why, precisely was 50 million years not even time? Just because scientists haven't found tons of fossils from that period, doesn't mean that they didn't live. Not knowing is the fun part, because it gives them something to study. Science is evolving as we learn more. You are looking at it kind of statically, as if science just made up its mind, never to study that area again. That couldn't be further from the truth. Scientists are investigating to learn more.

a reply to: Barcs

When a list of scientists support evolution, it must be the truth. When a list of scientists say that the cambrian explosion was sudden after I claim it is, the answer I get is "LOL NO". I can't help but conclude that your religion is evolution. It's like religious people ignoring passages they don't like from the bible.

This 'discussion' is not actually a discussion, so, this conversation is over.

a reply to: vasaga

Your response was all about word semantics, rather than actually explaining why 50 million years is too short for evolution on that scale. The word "sudden" means little to nothing in this discussion, yet you focused your entire response on that one line, and ignored the rest of my points. 50 million years is an absolute term. That is the meat and potatoes of your argument. I don't care what descriptors scientists use. Please present an actual argument as to why 50 million, or heck even 20 million years is too short. Stop dodging the question.

a reply to: vasaga

First you should admit that you are wrong, it's the evidence that supports evolution, scientist won't support anything without evidence.
Then you could move on to learning the difference between "playing semantic games" and "speaking the English language". And then you could try a little harder not to be wrong about other things in general.

Then this discussion can actually be a discussion..

a reply to: Barcs
Barcs,
What do you think of the experiment Wilf and Ewens did a few years back to try and solve this issue?
They are evolutionists who tried to find a solution to this very problem.
There is a huge difference in saying it "could" have happened and it "did" happen.
50 million years is a HUGE amount of time. Yet is there proof that all the diversity we see in the fossil record could have happened through speciation in that relatively "short" amount of time.
I am afraid that the burden of proof does not lay on Vasaga. And it is rather unfair to ask them to provide proof that 50 million years was not enough time. He/she is not the one claiming it was (you know, trying to prove the whole double negative thing).

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

Your response was all about word semantics, rather than actually explaining why 50 million years is too short for evolution on that scale. The word "sudden" means little to nothing in this discussion, yet you focused your entire response on that one line, and ignored the rest of my points. 50 million years is an absolute term. That is the meat and potatoes of your argument. I don't care what descriptors scientists use. Please present an actual argument as to why 50 million, or heck even 20 million years is too short. Stop dodging the question.

Right. Now it's suddenly about semantics. When I gave the initial claim, no one complained about semantics. You were simply saying I was wrong, that it simply wasn't sudden. Even after Wikipedia itself says it's sudden. After I showed multiple scientists saying it's sudden, suddenly I'm the one playing with semantics. You will always make up an excuse to keep supporting your current views. I'm not arguing against rational people. I'm arguing against a mountain of emotional attachment.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: vasaga

First you should admit that you are wrong,

Why should I when you never do it? Oh right. You're never wrong, right? I'm the one who's always wrong.

originally posted by: flyingfish
Then you could move on to learning the difference between "playing semantic games" and "speaking the English language". And then you could try a little harder not to be wrong about other things in general.

Then this discussion can actually be a discussion..

Who's the one playing semantic games when I say sudden in evolutionary terms and you people are pretended that I meant sudden like in daily language, blink of an eye and so on? Who's playing semantics games when you're pretending that I said it's sudden when there's a whole list of scientists saying it's sudden? You're constantly playing language games, and then blame me for it. It's disgusting.

It's always the other person that should change apparently. You never learn to adapt or change yourselves. Maybe, just maybe, if you're having such a hard time convincing people of the ultimate truth that is evolution, you should change your approach of how you deal with people. Oh right. Your ego is more important than actually teaching people things. You want to feel grand yourself. When you learn to be intellectually honest, you'll learn that all of these things you require me to do, are completely unnecessary.

The only time this will be an actual conversation or discussion is when you learn to respect people rather than trying to make yourself look grand..

But the main questions still never gets' answered. If not evolution ...then what?

a reply to: vasaga


Blah blah blah... You have absolutely no clue of the truth and refuse to even begin to listen to the truth.
The truth is that your ideas and understanding of evolution and science in general are wrong, no different than every other creo on this forum. You need to question those ideas in order to try to correct them. It's when you believe most strongly that you have it right that you actually have it the most wrong.

I find it unbelievable that anyone should dare to post and prate and posture and prance around as you do without the slightest knowledge of what you're talking about.

*snip*


Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

a reply to: vasaga

There isn't any evidence for God. That is a fact. So I cannot say one way for sure whether one exists. So I just don't make a decision on that. However I can say for sure that the bible as written is incorrect. There is plenty of proof to discount the bible.

Keep in mind, just because I said that there is no evidence for god, doesn't mean that I am saying one doesn't exist.

originally posted by: amazing
But the main questions still never gets' answered. If not evolution ...then what?

A giant bearded hippie in the sky? Oh wait, space monkeys!

originally posted by: amazing
But the main questions still never gets' answered. If not evolution ...then what?

What about, it's ok not to know?

originally posted by: flyingfish
It's when you believe most strongly that you have it right that you actually have it the most wrong.

I would so wish you would listen to this sentence yourself.

originally posted by: flyingfish
I find it unbelievable that anyone should dare to post and prate and posture and prance around as you do without the slightest knowledge of what you're talking about.

Maybe if you could actually explain things better, rather than pretending you know, we would get somewhere.

originally posted by: flyingfish
Maybe you should take up some hobby more suitable to your intellectual capacity, such as basket-weaving..

There is nothing wrong with my intellectual capacity since I was able to get a bachelor's degree and work at a refinery as an engineer, thank you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vasaga

There isn't any evidence for God. That is a fact. So I cannot say one way for sure whether one exists. So I just don't make a decision on that. However I can say for sure that the bible as written is incorrect. There is plenty of proof to discount the bible.

Keep in mind, just because I said that there is no evidence for god, doesn't mean that I am saying one doesn't exist.

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. I'm not saying and not even inferring that we should replace evolution with God or whatever. And, I didn't make any comments regarding the bible. But, for the record, I agree that the bible is definitely not 100% a fact and that it's not written by God. Whether there's evidence for God or not, if we're talking about the abrahamic God, I agree that there is very little evidence.

a reply to: vasaga

Then we are in agreement then. Like I said evolution is real, god being real has no evidence for or against it. Evolution makes no claims against god and can even co-exist alongside god as a how life develops.

So what's your point?

Evolution is real regardless if god exists or not.

Let's keep it Friendly, Folks.


No need for sniping and drive by one liners.


TIA