NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

quote:

---

Don't be obtuse. Without an intelligent entity ID is sterile. ID requires an INTELLIGENT ENTITY. Therefore, you are arguing either supernatural forces or aliens. If not aliens, then supernatural agency. Which is it?

---

Why are you placing words in my mouth? I said: I have not yet mentioned anything regarding any supernatual agnecy. Lets go step-by-step instead of jumping to conclusions and without putting words in my mouth.

quote:

---

... just makes you look bad.

---

huh?

quote:

---

This, of course, is crap as I pointed out in my post #31. You cannot know this with haveing infinite knowledge of the universe.

---

As far as IC is concerned, you haven't yet invalidated this argument. You don't need infinite knowledge to know IC but just a few scientific apparatus and knowledge. The strict co-ordination of organelles and systems working in harmony make them irreducibly complex. I did give a few examples like (to begin with), the cilia.

quote:

---

And Behe, has been refuted

---

I doubt that.

quote:

---

Sometime within the last century at least. But the real issue is that you phrased the assertation to imply that NEW discoveries were on your side. This is patently mis-leading and quite dishonest.

---

The real issue here is my argument of Cambrian explosion not how and when I use the word recent.

quote:

---

BS. You are trying to cover your error/deception, IMHO.

---

That may be your opinion but it surely is not true.

quote:

---

Notice that the phrase is 'it is as though... ' not 'they did in fact...'

---

So dawkins asks you the words he has to use to express his viewpoint? "It is as though they were planted there without any evolutionary history" >> this is the famous Zoologist atheist evolutionist speaking and I reckon all his viewpoints (regardless of 'as though' or 'in fact') is held in high regard in the atheist community.

quote:

---

No, actually he doesn't. You are twisting the quote. Dawkins is writing colorfully, for better or worse. This is a pop-press book, not a scientific paper.

---

You are trying to conceal this acknowledgement by Dawkins, IMHO. pop-press book or a scientific paper, Dawkins throughout the entire book (Blind watchmaker) does not mention one iota to elaborate what he said. Therefore, I think what I quoted is all that he really commented about the Cambrian explosion. He does not mention anything like "slow burn" or "rapid animal evolution" in his book.

quote:

---

You seem to be pretty much unaware of the whole of modern evolutionary theory, so it isn't surprising that you are unaware of this.

---

By modern evolutionary theory, you mean neo-darwinism? And yes, I am unaware. You don't expect me to know everything, now do you?Regards,
Ahmad

Firstly, what criterias do you use to distinguish between a scientific magazine (as SCIAM, discover) and journals?Secondly, why don't you accept quotes from scientific magazines or even medias like national review? Do they lie?

quote:

---

"Nature" is a journal. However, "atheists" do not censor the scientific journals. What is published goes through an anonymous peer-review process. If Creationists are not being published it must be either (1) They aren't submitting papers or (2) they don't have any evidence. And I have never heard of a Creationist showing off rejection notices from the journals!

---

And I have never seen any creation articles in Nature journal. For the sake of fairness, Nature should have at the least taken the step to publish one creation article or hold debates. They don't do that now do they?

quote:

---

*However*, Dr. Robert Gentry has published his work about polonium haloes in Science (I've read the paper myself). He met the standards of evidence for publication and so the paper made it through. Of course lots of people have found flaws in the geological assumptions he made (Dr. Gentry is a physicist). In fact you would probably be surprised at the things that occasionally do get published. I have books with excerpts from some of the more "interesting" papers that get published in the journals from time to time.

---

Well yeah... Science is another magazine like SCIAM. Here's their website >> Science | AAASHowever, I did a search on the site (if I have it correct) regarding Dr. Gentry's article but the result yielded null.

quote:

---

Book reviews don't count because they don't go through peer review. The technical papers go through peer review, columns do not. This particular columnist was only stating his personal opinion, which is not of great import. Also letters to the journals do not contain great import either. I've actually read a pro-UFO commentary in Science by none other than J. Allen Hyneck, in the letters section. If they'll publish that they'll publish anything there. If somebody's opinion on Creationism there substantiates Creationism, then I guess the truth is out there...

---

Agreed but I doubt of the presence of any creation-related article in journals like Nature. Its hard to find any since its dominated by Maddox.

quote:

---

Discover is a popular magazine that covers science and technology, not a peer reviewed journal. SciAm is better, but is headed in that direction.

---

Discover does review and verify its articles and checks the credentials of the authors. Its quite unbiased unlike Nature, IMO.

quote:

---

A list of journals, off the top of my head:

​

Science
Nature
Eos
Geochemica et Cosmochemica
Icarus
Journal of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Scientist

​

And many others.

---

I am only subscribed to Sciam, discover and Nature currently. But I will try to look uo the journals you mentioned Insha Allah.

quote:

---

I think this is PR. The problem is that it is written in the first person. Scientific papers are always written in the third person. What we have here is obviously a letter or some similar commentary.

---

Its not a letter or a commentary but a statement by H.P Lipson, a physicist.

quote:

---

I've visited all of these. I've rebutted many of their arguments probably more than a hundred times. It's always the same old thing. Pick any argument you like, present it to us, and we'll shoot it down.

---

Really? Have you sent rebuttals to the author of the site?

quote:

---

First you have to demonstrate that it does violate the law. Secondly you must come to grips that this is an interesting case because 2LOT is a law based upon probability. Somewhere in the universe heat might actually flow from a cold object to a warm object (breaking the law) but it's extremely improbable.

---

It does violate the Law. Have a look at the essay by Timothy Wallace as he rebuts and clarifies how evolution violates the 2LOT >> http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

quote:

---

We are taking that into account. Energy to fuel the opposition to entropy in Earth's biosphere is being provided by the Sun. But as that energy is used and expended as heat it is no longer available. At the source of that energy, a non-reversible fusion reaction is converting two moles of hydrogen into one mole of helium. But that helium can never convert back to hydrogen -- some of the energy is lost forever as heat. Order on Earth is increasing. *But* in response, *disorder* in the universe as a whole is increasing proportionally, and the amount of free energy in the universe is also decreasing. Therefore you have a universal increase in entropy so 2LOT is satisfied.

---

The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs a motor, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in gasoline to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy in gasoline.The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.So a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed.

quote:

---

This process is really more common than it would seem. If all systems always progressed to decay, as you are implying Earth's biosphere should, life would be impossible.

---

No, it won't. An influx of heat energy (from the sun) into a system would not decrease entropy. The entropy continues operating. Actually, the added heat energy would increase the rate at which the breakdown of systems occurred. This is because oxidation is increased, and chemical actions speed up.But, we might ask, does not added energy ever slow down entropy? Yes, but only when carefully applied by an outside intelligence.It takes energy to build a house out of planks, pipes out of galvanized steel, windows out of glass, and then apply paint and maintain it all. By so doing, we slow entropy for a time. An intelligence higher than the house constructed it and keeps it in good shape. Eventually, the higher being steps back and stops the endless repairs and replacementsand entropy takes over. The house falls to pieces. The living organism is like that house. It requires continual maintenance to keep it in proper shape."The cosmological arrow generates randomness or disorder, whereas the evolutionary arrow generates complexity. A fully reductionist theory of evolution must demonstrate that the evolutionary arrow can be derived from the cosmological arrow."*Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," in Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979), p. 349.

quote:

---

Like the biosphere, individual organisms are not closed systems, that's why they require energy input from their surroundings.

---

Actually, the 2LOT also includes open systems. "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 40 [Harvard University researcher]. Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

LOL! Another ancient argument that was refuted long ago but is still kept alive by the faithful.

​

No, the 2LoT is NOT violated by Evolution. In a nutshell, the reason it isn't is because the 2LoT applies only to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system because it is bombarded with energy from the sun. See more here:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

​

Christian Fundamentalists have been using this argument to impress people who don't understand physics for many decades. Your Harun fellow is not big into original thought, is he? Oh well, I suppose it works, so why reinvent the wheel, eh?

---

Don't get too excited. The response for adrenaline won't do you any good. Frank Steiger has already been refuted by Wallace here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.aspSo, you were saying......

quote:

---

Robert Shapiro does not deal with Evolution. He writes about Abiogenisis, which is different altogether. As far as I know, he fully accepts Evolution.

---

Oh Shapiro is an agnostic and an evolutionist. As I have seen, many evolutionists have criticised Shapiro for his works on Abiogenesis. Thats why I mentioned him.

quote:

---

Fred Hoyle is an Evolutionist.

---

I don't think so. Fred Hoyle was a darwinist critic. Remember the Boeing-747 story? His book, "Mathematics of evolution" where he introduces the Panspermia theory as an alternative to the theory of evolution. He is also author of "Why neo-darwinism does not work?" and "The Intelligent Universe". What makes you say that Hoyle's an evolutionist is queer.

quote:

---

Michael Behe is an evolutionist. His book is also a "God of the Gaps" book.

---

Behe is a theistic evolutionist (as I remember) but not sure. His book on IC explains the different co-ordination in organelles in systems. Why do you classify it as "God of the Gaps" book?

quote:

---

William Dembski's book has been widely criticised as one big "argument from ignorance"; "because we don't unkerstan X, God must have done it."

---

You have not used one iota of evidence to back up your claim. Hence, its a baseless assertion. As as I know, Dembski, who previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas and has a Ph.D in philosphy and Mathematics, can hardly be called "ignorant".

quote:

---

Philip Johnson is famous only for being an anti-Evolutionist, because he isn't even a scienctist. He is a lawyer.

---

Phillip Johnson, even though he's a lawyer, makes excellent points against evolution. You have the right to question his credentials, but his articles, on reading, will not provoke you to."Law professor Phillip Johnson is a legal philosopher whose books on Darwinian speculation have shaken the liberal establishment and embarrassed doctrinaire naturalism." (Insight Mag)

quote:

---

Did you mean to mention all of these Evolutionists to support your argument?

---

Some, I have, some I will Insha Allah.

quote:

---

This is a popular press book, not from a peer-reviewed, professional science journal.

---

So pop-press books by Dawkins, Grasse all spread lies? I am sure they bear some weight to my argument.

quote:

---

This is getting silly. This is a popular press book. Don't you know what a professiona science journal is?

​

Besides, all of these books are at LEAST 30 years old!

---

I will try to cite, as frequesntly as possible, from Journals henceforth but the quotation from various books by known authors will not cease. I do agree that the books are at least 30 years old but the fact that they are still recognized as authority in the scientific community is what matters.

quote:

---

Ah, but my assertions are not baseless. I can provide evidence. Have a look around this site and tell me how many arguments sound familiar:

​

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

---

Dated. Timothy Wallace has a rebut for that site here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

quote:

---

Read through the TalkOrigins site. You can do searches on any topic, such as "Thermodynamics". If you are truly interested in the truth about scientific theories, this site will be very useful to you.

---

Talk origins is a biased website that only seeks to uphold the materialistic philosophy of Darwin. It takes advantage of the little knowledge of their readers to propagate baseless and unscientific asserions. Some deceptions of talkorigins is outlines by Jorge Fernandez here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
That site will be very useful to you.

quote:

---

Your religious leader twists science for his religious purpose.

---

Science need not be twisted for religious purposes and Harun Yahya is not a religious leader.

quote:

---

This is unconstitutional in the US and will not last.

---

Lets just wait and see..

quote:

---

Cite from the PROFESSIONAL literature, please.

---

"One thing that interested us is that there are 500 thousand to 1 million Alu repeats across the human genome," says Ramin Shiekhattar, Ph.D., an associate professor at The Wistar Institute and senior author on the Nature study. "These sequences are very common. And this makes sense if one of their roles is to bind to the bridging proteins, the cohesins, to keep the replicated DNA sisters together until it is time for them to separate. Multiple bridging sites throughout the DNA would be needed for this system to work. They couldn't be unique sequences."I got this from Science Daily >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2002/08/020830072103.htmSurely you will regard this information about the Unjunk "Junk DNA" trsutworthy unless...... Science daily is another pop-press Journal, as you call it.

quote:

---

There are no obsevations of irreducable complexity.

​

Not one.

​

This is just an argument from ignorance.

​

Behe tried to say that the mechanism for bloodclotting was irreducably complex, for example, but only a few years since his book came out, an evolutionary pathway for blood clotting has been discovered.

---

IC is evident. It is observable. It has been found in ATP synthase molecule, the hsp70 genome, cilia, bacterial flagellum etc. Regarding your last statement, there is no proof for any evolutionary pathway for blood clotting, is there?

quote:

---

Tell me, how could your version of Creation Science be falsified? What evidence, if discovered, would make you abandon Creationism?

---

Hmmm.... evidence for the Non-Existence of the Creator

quote:

---

That's what it does. HOW does it do that was my question.

---

By numerous ways:1. collecting empirical evidence
2. applying logic
3. determining possibilities
4. determining the root causeThere are others, but these are the ones at my head now.

quote:

---

I disagree. Science doesn't HAVE to contradict religion, but religion contradicts science all the time.

---

The very essense of religion is to believe in God. How does that contradict science?

quote:

---

An explanation of the scientific method. What method of inquiry do scientists use to conduct science?

---

Logical investigation of a phenomenon, process, or a mechanism. Determining causes and effects. Drawing conclusions taking all the scientific criterias at hand, in consideration. Comparison; by comparing the particular phenomenon to others that have been established as facts, scientists can have a better understanding of it. Classification; After comparison, we can classify this phenomenon under a category that satisifies all the criterias of the phenomenon. Then the phenomenon is theorized depending largely on the emprical evidence. There are many different strategies by which we can understand the nature, function, properties of the phenomenon making them available in flow-charts, concept maps, venn diagrams, mind maps etc etc. I hope I made some sense.

quote:

---

How does one tell the difference between real science and pseudo science?

---

I am not a scientist to satisfactorily answer that question but as a student I think....... real science deals with Logic, Rationality and Reason. Pseudoscience, OTOH, is quite the opposite. It works with conclusions drawn by relative observations but not based on empirical evidence as real science. However, I don't think there any such thing as pseudoscience (come to think of it) as it is oxymoron.

quote:

---

Or, how does one tell the difference between pseudoscience and religion?

---

Pseudo science is not science in the first place. Finding differences between pseudoscience and religion would be futile then. Religion is a way of life ordained by God to His creations. As a Muslim, I believe there always has been one true religion, Islam (literally defined as submission to the Will of God).Pseudoscience, however, upholds superstiton and materialism which is in complete contrast with religion.

quote:

---

I should have written, "how does one tell the difference between SCIENCE and religion?" above. That is the question I wish you to answer.

---

;Sigh.... and now you ask me. But I will try to respond nonetheless: let me ask you this first, WHY do you want to differentiate between Science and Religion?The very purpose for this differentiation seems null and void. On insistance, Science works by reason and logic and religion works by faith and reason (as I see it). However, it is strictly my opinion about it. Science and Religion go hand-in-hand as Einstein puts it: "Science without religion is Lame and Religion without Science is blind".Al-Hamdulillah, I rest my case!!Regards,
Ahmad

Behe has responded to all his critics >> http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_response.htmRegards,
Ahmad

I see many other responses. Due to Ramadan (a period when Muslims abstain from food and drink from dawn to dusk) and my final years exams, I might not be able to respond to each of the rebuts and arguments pronto. Insha Allah (if God willing), after Ramadan and my exams I will continue this productive dialog Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Where was the sarcasm?

---

None of the above have been DEMONSTRATED to be IC.It has been shown again and again, how certain systems are irredubily complex. You can start by reading Behe's book.

quote:

---

I have read the actual paper (Thornhill.pdf), & find no support for IC structures as defined by creationists. That is, a structure such that at least one of its components is essential, with its loss rendering the whole structure absolutely nonfunctional. Meaning that the structure had to have been designed, & could not have evolved (or some such).

---

[Shortened long link. --Admin]Exactly. I don't know if you have read the article also by Thornhill, R.H., Ussery, D.W. 2000. "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." J. Theor. Bio. 203: 111-116.The article outlines Behe's theory of IC:"However, the more theoretical question about the accessibility by Darwinian evolution of irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, if such exist, has not been thoroughly examined. .One factor hampering examination of the accessibility of biological structures by Darwinian evolution is the absence of a classification of possible routes. A suggested classification is presented here."Although one can argue about it, this can be viewed as a fundamental confirmation of Behe's thesis that the origin of these IC structures has not been explained by science. However, what should be clear is that Behe's skepticism has served as an impetus for these scientists to develop a classification that did not exist before. Therefore, Behe has indeed contributed in an indirect way by serving as the stimulus for the creation of such a classification.

quote:

---

Your cite agrees with me that T&U’s definition of IC differs from Behes.

---

Of interest also is their definition of Darwinian evolution. It includes the following: "no intervention by conscious agent(s) occurs." So we see how an a priori assumption of science works to exclude a teleological cause (reminding us that science is simply not an authority when dealing with question of teleology vs. non-teleology).

quote:

---

Can you provide any scientific literature that concludes that no IC structure can have evolved?

---

How can an irredubly complex system have been evolved? Let me quote Behe's defintion for IC:"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."and"An irreducibly complex system is one that requires several closely matched parts in order to function and where removal of one of the components effectively causes the system to cease functioning."SO the key point here is: "ALL COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM HAS TO BE PRESENT". Evolution stands on natural selection which has no consciousness and simply eliminates the weaker of the species or in genetics, selects the dominant genotypes for organisms. The next best explanation, they come up with is random mutation. If organelles like the bacterial flagellum developed through evolution from simples flagella by small minute mutations over a period of time, it would not be irreducibly complex in the first place. So my question to you will be: How do you think an IC structure be evolved?

quote:

---

Once again, where was the sarcasm?

---

In your statement. You provide no empirical evidence.

quote:

---

IC (as creationists define it) most definitely ISN’T evident. If it were, you would be able to produce a paper that concludes that an IC structure couldn’t evolve.

---

How can an IC structure evolve, in the first place? According to Behe's definition, it is impossible.

quote:

---

This contention has NEVER been demonstrated, it is therefore NOT evident.

---

http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_ic.htm << Read some examples of IC and then you'll know how it is evideny.

quote:

---

My point precisely, hardly an explosion. Not all the organisms appear at the base of the explosion, do they?

---

The first thing that strikes a lay mind of the word explosion is some burst, or something that blew off. In science, especially in the Cambrian explosion, it is abrupt appearance of living organisms during the Cambrian era. Richard Fortey in the Science journal has this to say:"This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record. Furthermore, cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. .....Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian. (Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?", Science, vol 293, No 5529, 20 July 2001, p. 438-439)The only excuse evolutionists can give for this quote would either be Science is just another pop-press mag or Fortey is writing colorfully. And the take I have taken, is in context unless some prove otherwise

quote:

---

Ahmad, do you read your own cites?

​

You claim to have refuted my argument that the Cambrian explosion was an event taking millions of years? Your cite agrees with me.

---

Obviosuly, thats an pro-evolutionist site. I thought you were on the support of the rapid evolution theory. My mistake.

quote:

---

Nope, see above, noting lend credence to the theory that a long evolutionary fuse preceded the Cambrian explosion.

---

In the site I pointed out,a Crustacean was found in limestone which was dated to be about 511 million years old and the fossil preserves a great deal of detail. Scientists point out that the appendages and even other soft bodied parts are clearly visible. Now the problem with the Cambrian explosion for evolutionists is that the fossils for many complex creatures just suddenly show up (as if they were created) in the fossil record during the Cambrian time period. The only other life found in the fossil record before this time period are simple one celled bacteria, metazoans, and sponge like creatures. So there's no record of a slow gradual transition between those kinds of living organisms and complex animals like Crustaceans and others found in the Cambrian Explosion. The unfortunate thing is that finds like this don't necessarily cause evolutionists to question their theory - instead they question the data, "there must have been a period of evolution prior to this so-called Cambrian explosion." said one evolutionist. This is a clear picture of the dogmatic approach that many have.

quote:

---

Furthermore, it is not dated, since it has long been known that highly derived trilobites appear at the earliest strata of the CE. And, as I have noted, & you have failed to respond, metazoans pre-date the explosion by a considerable period.

---

The metazoans first appeared in the Cambrian era. Do you disagree with that? The trilobites, when first appeared, possessed a highly complex vision system, not characteristic of slow gradual evolution as the ToE suggests.

quote:

---

Wrong.

​

The ediacarans are multicellular animals that lived in the upper proterozoic. True, there is debate as to whether they are metazoans or parazoans, but the fact remains that multicellular animals existed in the Precambrian.

---

I don't think multicellular organisms existed in the precambrian, as you assume. The wide-spread arrival of multi-cellular animals first took place at the Cambrian era. Here is a site which mentions this fact at the very beginning >> Page not found - Biology Articles, Tutorials & Dictionary OnlineOf course, then it goes on to explain about NS, but that is irrelevant. It attests to the fact I previously claimed. Ediacarans are not animals, in the first place. They are multicellular algae.

quote:

---

Shelly fossils, true metazoans, commonly called the Tommotian fauna existed in the Precambrian 570 mya, pre-dating the Cambrian by 30 million years. Also cnidarians are true metazoans & have representatives in the Precambrian.

​

http://www.uwsp.edu/...hefferan/Geol106/CLASS5/TOMMOTIAN.htm

---

What is interesting to note is that the Tommotian Age, which began about 530 million years ago, is a subdivision of the early Cambrian >> Tommotian Age

quote:

---

Tommotion Fauna existed at the base of the Cambrian and were marked by small shelly fossils, on the order of millimeters in scale. This fauna, which existed 570-560 Ma were fundamentally important in that they represented metazoans containing the first known hard parts and were the predecessors to the phyla of the Cambrian Explosion.

---

quote:

---

From same website: The Tommotian Age, which began about 530 million years ago, is a subdivision of the early Cambrian.

---

quote:

---

What does this remind you of? A trilobite? Would you be surprised to learn that this fossil predates the Cambrian by 20 million years plus?

---

I don't know what your motive is behind pointing out this fossil of spriggina. But the trilobites first dominate in the Cambrian era. The first fossils of trilobites that emerged in the Cambrian era as a result of the cambrian explosion.

quote:

---

It is important to note that the Cambrian onset was 543 mya, & was recently placed at this juncture to mark the onset of the Cambrian explosion. Anything before 543 mya was before the Cambrian explosion.

---

But most of the complex invertebrates emereged in .......... ?

quote:

---

You miss the point. You are insisting on appearances of fossils as being abrupt/instant in the fossil record, so following the same logic, a new discovery of a species must mean the same thing, right? The organism was created on the day of its discovery, what else could explain the fact that it has never been seen before?

---

Empirical evidence relating to the fossil records and dating its origins, classifying it to an era. Thats how we can find out. There is ample evidence to suggest, that species emerged as a result of the Cambrian explosion was abrupt and sudden. Why, then, are there no transitional, no evolutionary links between them?? The species you pointed out from the Precambrian era especially Vendian era, bears no weight to your argument. Is the spriggina classified as an ancestor of the trilobites? No! The only assumption is that "it could be". But thats non sequitur. There is ample evidence for the abrupt appearance of life during the Cambrian era. One such are the fossils found in the Yunnan province in ChinaThe Fossils previously found in Yunnan province (at sites discovered nearly 100 years ago) and in the Burgess Shale deposits of the Canadian Rockies tell us that all animal phyla (more than 70) ever to exist in Earth’s history appeared at once about 540 million years ago. (Some 40 phyla have since disappeared and not a single new one has appeared.) This burst of life is called the Cambrian Explosion, and the at once refers to an extremely narrow window of geologic time (~5-10 million years)[Richard A. Kerr, Evolution’s Big Bang Gets Even More Explosive, Science, 261 (1993), pp. 1274-1275.]Anomalocaris, isolated frontal appendage of the largest Burgess Shale animal and perhaps the largest Cambrian animal. Such an appendage was first described and interpreted as an incomplete body of a shrimp-like arthropod. There are no evolutionary links to this organism, no transitional links either. Marrella splendens Walcott, 1912, called the "lace crab" by Walcott. The problematic arthropod had two pairs of antennae and cannot be accomodated in any of the modern arthropod groups.More can be found here >> Not found - Universitt WrzburgIn the Yunnan province: Misszhouia longicaudata, a soft-bodied trilobite.
Specimen with largely exfoliated thorax exposing preserved appendages.Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. (David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol 50, January 1979, p. 24.)Regards,
Ahmad[This message has been edited by Admin, 11-14-2002]

quote:

---

Popular magazines are for-profit and publish articles which are directed at a general audience.

---

So that makes all their articles wrong?

quote:

---

Professional science journals are not for profit. They are the place where scientists publish their work. They are peer-reviewed, which means that a committee of experienced scientists in the field (Evolutionary Biologists would review Evolutionary Biology papers submitted to an Evolutionary Biology Journal, for example) reviews the work submitted by scientists for methodological soundness, to see if their statistical work is good, to make sure they took into account other explanations from past research that might apply to their work, etc. Usually a paper is not accepted for publication on first submission and it is sent back along with suggestions for how to improve it, what additional experiments might need to be conducted to get better data, etc. If the revisions are relatively minor then it will be resubmitted after these are completed and probably accepted for publication.

---

Thats when they go deep into explaining something, scientifically. What I am asking is for example when Dawkins says that organism emerged as a result of the cambrian explosion were "placed there with no evolutionary history", is he wrong? As I know, scientists do write books in easier terms for the layman, but they elaborate their work in scinetific papers. Its not like Dawkins says something in his book but says something totally different peer-previewed papers.

quote:

---

It's not that they lie, it's just that they do not represent evidence from research in the same way as the professional literature does. It is not as reliable because it has been filtered through editors and writers.

---

So when Alex Oparin says in his book Origin of Life, "Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory" (page 96), is he going to disprove himself by proving the oppsoite in science papers??

quote:

---

I hat to break it to you, but since Creation science is based upon divine revelation rather than evidence, and since most Creationists spend their time trying to tear down Evolution rather than doing their OWN research, I doubt that any Creationist has even submitted for publication in the first place.

---

Oh they have. Natue just don't publish them. And I believe there adequate evidence for Creationism to be qualified to be a "theory" just like the ToE.

quote:

---

LOL! See above for what peer-review means.

---

Oh so the Discover mag publishes articles by anonymous, non-legible authors and they don't check their credentials?

quote:

---

A "statement" is a commentary. The point remains that a statement is not evidence from a journal article.

---

If only you would have read, you will notice that the statement is a conlusion drawn from the research conducted by Lipson.

quote:

---

So? This refutes Evolution how?

---

So the simplest of the organisms would have had a ready made energy conversion mechanism? Are you implying that?

quote:

---

Since, by definition, life arose with the ability to perform this conversion, what is your point?

---

In order for the energy to be functional, specific energy conversion mechanisms are needed. Do you agree that the first organism, most probably HAD ALL THE NECCESARY COMPONENTS FOR ITS ENERGY CONVERTING SYSTEM??Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Repeating the same crap does not make for a good argument.

​

Or, two misunderstandings do not make an understanding.

---

I agree but in what way have I repeated "the same crap" and what "crap"?

quote:

---

Panspermia isn't an alternative to evolution. It is an alternative to abiogenesis-- sort-of.

---

sort of, I guess

quote:

---

Yup.

---

I'll repeat my question: Why do you classify Behe's book as "God of the Gaps" book?

quote:

---

None of the credentials have any bearing on whether his book is or is not an argument from ignorance. This sentence, however, does illustrate your ignorance of informal logic.

---

How does it illustrate that? I reckon you havn't read any of Dembski's books. One of his books, "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence" is an excellent piece of work and worth a read.

quote:

---

No, but the books are written for a lay ausdience and use a lot of metaphor and not many equations. Metaphor can be misleading.

---

Lame excuse to cover an acknowledgement. Try again.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

As I have explained, I am not arguing that systems don’t exist where the removal of one component renders the system useless. They do. What I AM arguing that there is no scientific support (scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals) that supports the contention that these systems couldn’t evolve. IDists have to provide POSITIVE (that means claims that such & such couldn’t have happened are NOT acceptable) evidence that IC cannot evolve.

---

So in other words, you do believe in irreducibly complex systems, but what you argue about is the evidence showing that these systems could not have evolved, if I am not wrong.If something is IC, how can it evolve? Evolution is the evolving of organisms from simple to complex by minor changes over a huge period of time caused by NS and random mutation. If a system is IC, then the question whether it evolved from a simpler system is moot. Hence then, that system is not IC in the first place!! All components are needed for a system to function effectively, so that if one of the components work, the entire system ceases to function. If a system is IC, then it should have ALL its components functionaing from the very beginning, now shouldn't it? Or are you denying that?

quote:

---

That was the article I meant. It provides no evidence of creationist IC. They define IC differently to Behe, & as such you shouldn’t get excited when you read the IC in this paper. In fact, they provide plausible mechanisms for the evolution of IC systems, so it seems an odd choice of literature with which to support your position.

---

Perhaps you might like to read a response to that article here >>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm

quote:

---

The question remains; can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that concludes that IC systems could not evolve? You are claiming it is impossible, please back up your claim.

---

You have the positive claim... that IC systems can evolve. The burden of proof is on you. Thornhill and Ussery's article has already been refuted. Go to the site I gave you.

quote:

---

1/ All metazoans appeared at the same time. They didn’t. Metazoans pre-existed the CE potentially by up to 500 MILLION YEARS (certainly 250 mya). Trace fossils go back almost twice as far as the CE.

---

Agreed. I stand corrected there. But what about the *missing links* of organisms that exploded in the Cambrian era? Is there any evidence to suggest that these organisms were descendants of metazoans in the pre-cambrian era?

quote:

---

The implicit notion that all animal complexity appeared literally overnight. Metazoans by definition are complex animals with specialised tissues & organs. As I have explained, they pre-date the Cambrian by a significant margin. Furthermore, patterns of diversity can be seen to evolve within the Cambrian.

---

Ok, so you admit that:1) Metazoans are complex animals
2)Metazoan fossils pre-date cambrian explosionSo if metazoans appeared first in the precambrian era and they were highly complex, WHEN DID THEY EVOLVE??

quote:

---

Palaeontologists agree that the Cambrian explosion is not simply an artifact of preservation, & that remarkable diversification did take place, in a relatively short period of time. However, lagerstatten containing Cambrian fossils in good states of preservation are extremely rare. This is a FACT. Worse, we know there are metazoans in the Precambrian & the body fossil situation is even more dire. The result? Huge chunks of evolution that are simply missed, giving the appearance of abrupt appearance of organisms. Much like finding new species today. According to creationists, evenly applying their own rationale to "abrupt" appearances in the fossil record, these new living species must have been created yesterday. Why else would they not have been discovered sooner?

---

The Burgess Shale was first found by Charles Walcott in 1909, why was the story, then, not reported to the public until the late 1980's?
The answer would be obvious. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist nowthat's more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) But the point is, they saw something they didn't know what to do with; that's the scientifically honest position they're placed in. Later on, as they began to understand things are not the same as Darwinian expectations, they started shutting up. So its not that finding fossils relating to the Cambrian explosion is difficult or rare. They are there. The fossils found in Burgess Shale and Yunnan province are evidence of the Cambrian Explosion not Cambrian evolution.Whats worse for evolutionists are the comparisons done between different living taxa. The results of these comparisons reveal that animal taxa considered to be "close relatives" by evolutionists until quite recently, are genetically very different, which puts the "intermediate form" hypothesis, that only exists theoretically, into an even greater quandary.

quote:

---

Again, I have no problem that rapid evolution occurred. I do have a problem when creationists claim that all phyla appeared in one go in the CE. This is patently false.

---

"Before the Cambrian period, almost all life was microscopic, except for some enigmatic soft-bodied organisms. At the start of the Cambrian, about 544 million years ago, animals burst forth in a rash of evolutionary activity never since equaled. Ocean creatures acquired the ability to grow hard shells, and a broad range of new body plans emerged within the geologically short span of 10 million years. Paleontologists have proposed many theories to explain this revolution but have agreed on none." (Monastersky, R., "When Earth Tipped, Life Went Wild," Science News, vol. 152, 1997, p. 52.)

quote:

---

The Cambrian explosion started around 543 mya, giving 32 my for the crustacea to evolve. If you are going to make the sudden appearance argument, your best bet is to go with trilobites.

---

Yes thats my best bet... the trilobites which has no known evolutianary origin. However, the evolution of Crustacea is still at question. The Jurassic period crustaceans looked pretty much like they do today. Shrimps and lobsters from the famous Solnhofen limestone are hardly distinguishable from modern forms.

quote:

---

My motive was to show a trilobite like organism that pre-dated the Cambrian by 20 million years plus.

---

Ok, so whats your point? That trilobites descended from spriggina?

quote:

---

That’s right, it could be! By your own pen, a potential transitional!

---

There is no empirical evidence for that.

quote:

---

One more time; B R Y O Z O A N. It is a phyla. It exists today.
There are NO Cambrian examples of it. Your cite above is incorrect.

---

The bryozoans were the ONLY group which were found in the fossil record a little later. However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was most probably also present in the Cambrian explosion.

quote:

---

Plants; Phylum Anthophyta, Phylum Bryophyta, Phylum Ginkgophyta, Phylum Coniferophyta, I could go on.

---

What about them? I am referring to animal phylas.

quote:

---

Herein lies the basic flaw in the creationist argument regarding the Cambrian explosion.

---

The first four flaws you point out does not refute the explosion is any way. Its still cambrian explosion and not cambrian evolution. Your fourth argument has to do with plants which I don't recall mentioning. The at once refers to an extremely narrow window of geologic time (~5-10 million years).3, 4 The latest reports from the Chinese sites narrows this window to less than 3 million years.More information can be found at Richard A. Kerr's, Evolution’s Big Bang Gets Even More Explosive, Science, 261 (1993), pp. 1274-1275.Regarding your fifth question, the devasting thing about cambrian explosion lies in the very defintion of evolution. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversedwe have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now. A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. (Paul Chien)As may be seen, CE indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state(like the trilobites). In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, [b][i]they were created[/b][/i].Regards,
Ahmad

Furthermore, even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian period, especially with the recent discovery of two fossil fish in China:The two new fossils . . . from Chengjiang are the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found.(Philippe Janvier, "Catching the First Fish," Nature[PEER-REVIEWED] (vol. 402, November 4, 1999), p. 21.)The insects and other land invertebrates are also a very important group, and these practically all seem to be living fossils. With respect to the arthropod phylum (the largest in the animal kingdom), consider the millipedes, for example.Indeed, the oldest fossils of land-dwelling animals are millipedes, dating to more than 425 million years ago. Incredibly, the archaic forms are nearly indistinguishable from certain groups living today.(William A. Shear, "Millipedes," American Scientist[PEER-REVIEWED] (vol. 87, May/June 1999), p. 234)The same phenomenon holds for practically all the insects.Compared with other life forms, insects are actually slow to evolve new familiesbut they are even slower to go extinct. Some 84 percent of the insect families alive today were alive 100 million years ago. . . .(Carl Zimmer, "Insects Ascendant," Discover (vol. 14, November 1993), p. 30.)Whether bees or ants, cicadas or beetles, termites or cockroaches, the fossils of these and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachnids and myriapods.Space does not allow discussion of modern amphibians (e.g., frogs, toads), reptiles (crocodiles, alligators, turtles), mammals (bats, squirrels, shrews, opossums, tarsiers, etc.), all of which (and many, many others) are practically identical with their fossil representatives but I'll try to get some images to prove my point.Regards,
Ahmad

Imagine a swimming slug with five eyes on the top of its head and a single arm with its jaw on the end - this is the very peculiar creature known as Opabinia. It lived about 550 million years ago and its fossils have been found in western Canada and China. It is almost as if nature was experimenting with various designs for complex life forms to determine which would work best. Opabinia was a slow swimming, 3-inch-long (8 cm) hunter. Its excellent vision would have allowed it to easily spot its prey, but it would have only been able to catch those creatures too slow to escape. This particular species has not been classified yet. Such a complex organism, the Opabinia is... nor its transition or its ancestor has been uncovered. Try linking this with evolutionary origins and see if you can do it!Anomalocaris, Ottoia, Wiwaxia, Hallucigenia and so on and so forth are creatures that are soo complex, that if evolution were true, then these creatures would have required twice the age of earth just to evolve!! Yet, here is the real puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion for the theory of evolution. All the known phyla, except one, along with the oddities, first appear in the Cambrian period. There are no ancestors. There are no intermediates. Fossil experts used to think that the Cambrian lasted 75 million years. But even that seemed to be a pretty short time for all this evolutionary change. Eventually the Cambrian was shortened to only 30 million years. And if that wasn't bad enough, the time frame of the real work of bringing all these different creatures into existence was limited to the first five to ten million years of the Cambrian. This is extraordinarily fast! Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould says, "Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting." What an understatement! "Extraordinarily impossible" might be a better phrase!In the Time magazine article (p. 70), paleontologist Samuel Bowring says, "We now know how fast fast is. And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before you start feeling uncomfortable?"Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Bang on the nose, my son! When I say IC, I mean a system that the removal of any one part renders the entire system useless. See your own cite for a possible explanation. Thornhill, R.H., Ussery, D.W. 2000. "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." J. Theor. Bio. 203: 111-116.

---

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm

quote:

---

Ahh, this is the real point of contention. An IC system is NOT implicitly created, it CAN potentially evolve. Creationists (even if Behe doesn’t) define IC as the above definition, with cannot possibly have evolved tagged on the end. My definition, & Ussery’s & Thornhill make no such claim. Why? Because no one has positive evidence that IC systems couldn’t evolve.

---

No one has positive empirical evidence that IC systems could have evolved. Note Behe's argument:"To feel the full force of the conclusion that a system is irreducibly complex and therefore has no functional precursors, we need to distinguish between a physical precursor and a conceptual precursor. . . . Darwinian evolution requires physical precursors."

quote:

---

Remember, this is your cite, & it provides no less than four possible avenues for IC evolution. Namely:

​

2.1. SERIAL DIRECT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION complex
2.2. PARALLEL DIRECT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
2.3. ELIMINATION OF FUNCTIONAL REDUNDANCY
2.4. ADOPTION FROM A DIFFERENT FUNCTION

---

If only you would have read the site... this is what it says:For Serial Direct Darwinian Evolution

quote:

---

Ahmad: Here again we get to see the contribution of Behe as the authors then note, "Although it can generate complicated structures, it cannot generate irreducibly complex structures."

​

So we can see that IC helps to rule out certain evolutionary pathways. This is also very significant in that the most persuasive examples of random mutation and natural selection (RM&NS) entail serial direct Darwinian evolution. The traditional examples of Darwin's finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, darkening wings in moths are all examples of serial direct Darwinian evolution. Thus, this means that evidence for this type of evolution is not evidence that IC can/did evolve via the blind watchmaker mechanism (BWM).

---

For Parallel Direct darwinian evolution,

quote:

---

Ahmad: This means approximately synchronous changes in more than one component, so that modification to other components always occurs before the total modification to any one component has become significant.

​

They then cite some examples:

​

Most complex supramolecular biological structures have primarily this type of accessibility by Darwinian evolution, with examples being bat echolocation, spiders' web construction, honeybee waggle dances, and insect mimicry by orchids (Dawkins, 1986, 1995). Some complex (but not irreducibly complex) molecular systems, such as the globin proteins (Ptitsyn, 1999; Satoh, 1999), could also have evolved in this manner.

​

But they also write:

​

Parallel direct Darwinian evolution can generate irreducibly complex structures, but not irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, and this is the valid conclusion to draw from Behe's thesis. (emphasis mine)

​

Thus, once again, we can see that when we are dealing with IC molecular machines (which are composed of functionally indivisible parts), the various examples of Darwinian evolution cited by Dawkins et al. are irrelevant. None of it amounts to evidence that Behe's IC examples evolved by the BWM.

---

For Elimination of Fucntional Redundancy,

quote:

---

Ahmad: The interesting thing about this pathway is that it too robs the standard Darwinian explanation of its appeal. Richard Dawkins presents Darwinism in its most convincing form:

​

"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance."

​

Yet elimination of function redundancy is an explanation that does not begin with "simple beginnings," but instead begins with a state that is more complex than that which is observed. But if simple beginnings are needed to "come into existence by chance," the complicated beginning, assumed by this pathway, may be too complicated to "come into existence by chance."

​

I personally find this pathway of redundancy elimination to be very interesting, as it may suggest that some originally designed states were much more complex than seen today, such that evolution was essentially rigged to evolve in particular directions. In other words, this pathway does not eliminate the design inference behind IC, but instead, suggests that IC is an indirect indicator of an originally designed state.

​

Nevertheless, what we need is evidence that the initial state was more complicated than the IC state. For example, are we talking about flagellum that were originally composed of 60 parts? Where is the evidence for such a claim? It is an interesting thought, but without evidence, we can't take it beyond the realm of philosophy.

---

For Adoption from a different system,

quote:

---

Ahmad: Ironically, the main problem with this pathway was first highlighted by another Behe-critic, H. Allen Orr. In his critique from Boston Review, Orr writes:

​

"First it will do no good to suggest that all the required parts of some biochemical pathway popped up simultaneously by mutation. Although this "solution" yields a functioning system in one fell swoop, it's so hopelessly unlikely that no Darwinian takes it seriously. As Behe rightly says, we gain nothing by replacing a problem with a miracle. Second, we might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function. But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car's transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity."

​

Since an IC system is built from closely/well-matched parts, it is unlikely that a component shaped to fulfill another function can snuggly plug-in to generate the IC function. In fact, Behe anticipates this solution by writing:

​

"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of the an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously."

​

To illustrate this point, let's consider the bacterial flagellum (perhaps the most well known example of an IC system). A functioning flagellum requires about 30 gene products (components). So what does the co-option hypothesis predict? That prior to the existence of the flagellum, these 30 gene products (or their duplicates) all existed doing something else. Then, they just happened to all fit together by chance to create a flagellum. And afterwards, the other 30 or so hypothetical functions of these original gene products disappeared. Does this really sound like a general solution to IC?

​

The brilliance of Darwin was to minimize the role of chance in apparent design. But once we turn to the co-option explanation, we leave this explanatory appeal behind, as chance reasserts itself into a place of prominence. For it is chance that determines whether the 30-or-so gene products just happen to come together to form a functioning flagellum, as selection was pruning these gene products in accord with 30-or-so different functions. Thus, the co-option explanation is really a return to using chance as an explanation for apparent design, and just as it was not convincing in pre-Darwinian days, it is not convincing today.

---

I recommend you read that site first to see the flaws and invalid assumptions made by Thornhill and Ussery.

quote:

---

I read it when you first cited it. They conclude that Behe's definition has made it into the scientific literature in the conclusion. It hasn’t, they even go to the lengths of pointing out how Behes & T&U’s definitions differ. Remarkable. And even if it had, Behes definition doesn’t preclude IC evolution, it’s just that Behe claimed it couldn’t happen. He never provided positive evidence that it couldn’t, however.

---

Journal of Theoretical Biology 203: 111-116 is not scientific literature? The evidence lies in the irreducibly complex systems. From the site:Nevertheless, what we need is evidence that the initial state was more complicated than the IC state. For example, are we talking about flagellum that were originally composed of 60 parts? Where is the evidence for such a claim? It is an interesting thought, but without evidence, we can't take it beyond the realm of philosophy.So we need evidence that IC systems could indeed have been a product of evolution. Thats a positive claim not backed up by empirical evidence nor any viable examples.

quote:

---

T&U’s article has not been refuted with POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. The best that can be said is that is has been replied to.

---

They have been rebutted. Also Behe has an interesting response for Ussery here >> http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm

quote:

---

You came here claiming IC couldn’t evolve, not me. The burden of evidence therefore falls squarely upon YOUR shoulders to back up YOUR claim. My position is that IC systems may possibly be able to evolve, I am making no such absolute statements as you are.

---

The very definition of IC, i.e, an irreducibly complex system is one that requires several closely matched parts in order to function and where removal of one of the components effectively causes the system to cease functioning, proves my point. If IC systems would have evolved, then they are not IC systems in the first place!! Some proponents of Behe introduced "Irreproducible Irreduciblity" ... I think by Keith Robison to which Behe has responded to often.

quote:

---

Note this suggests a relationship between chordates & echinoderms (there are many others). The problem I want to impress upon you is; how would we recognise an echinoderm/chordate transitional 750 mya? A starfish with a notochord? Early organisms are very amorphous. For example, what would an arthropod that never had an exoskeleton look like? Certainly, there are plenty of candidates, Spriggina for one, the SSF’s are another, but can we reduce the tentativity to an acceptable level?. Or a proto-arthropod that lacked jointed legs AND an exoskeleton? It would be almost impossible to reliably classify such a thing.

---

When we speak about transitional species, the similarities of the transition should not only be molecular but also morphological. I understand what you're trying to say. The fact is: hitherto, there are no echonoderm/chodate transitions nor evidence of the claim that echinoderm and chordata has common ancestors. Some propagate the Dipleuruloid theory which postulates an ancestral creature, known as the dipleurula, which gave rise to both the echinoderm and hemichordate lines. There is no empirical evidence for that however. We chordates don't have notochords but vertebral column. We don't have gill slits either.

quote:

---

This paper has some good information too. There are plenty of other papers that provide molecular evidence of a deep Precambrian divergence. Alas, as regards the fossil record, there are plenty of candidates for intermediates, but I couldn’t foist them upon you without noting the high tentativity involved.

---

Can you give me an HTML version of that paper? I don't have Acrobat reader. I would appreciate that.

quote:

---

Yes, but most of it molecular. The problem cladistics face is that organisms simpler than sponges & cnidarians possess no real apomorphies, by virtue of being gooey blobs (!!!!), so it becomes difficult to identify (certainly from fossil impressions) features that are common to phyla appearing in the CE. However:

---

The results of molecular comparisons do not work in favor of the theory of evolution at all. There are huge molecular differences between creatures that appear to be very similar and related. For instance, the structure of Cytochrome-C, one of the proteins vital to respiration, is incredibly different in living beings of the same class. According to research carried out on this matter, the difference between two different reptile species is greater than the difference between a bird and a fish or a fish and a mammal. Another study has shown that molecular differences between some birds are greater than the differences between those same birds and mammals. It has also been discovered that the molecular difference between bacteria that appear to be very similar is greater than the difference between mammals and amphibians or insects. Similar comparisons have been made in the cases of haemoglobin, myoglobin, hormones, and genes and similar conclusions are drawn.I recommend W. R. Bird's, The Origin of Species Revisited which provides excellent information regarding molecular comparisons and phylogeny

quote:

---

See above. Best molecular estimate of the earliest multicellular animal? About 1 bn years ago, this is congruent with the trace fossil estimate.

---

Then why are trace fossils (fossil tracks, trails, and burrows) so rare before the base of the Cambrian, if these animals existed for that 1 billion years? One of the earliest metazoans in the Cambrian era, the trilobites are an enigma of complexity. How can evolution explain its sudden origin? If trilobites descended from spriggina, then are there any transitional links between them??

quote:

---

What? Walcott published his findings in the scientific community at the time. Perhaps you are referring to S.J. Goulds book, Wonderful Life, 1989? If you are, you will discover in its pages that Walcott published in his lifetime. You will also find some more evidence of Precambrian cladogenesis.

---

But were they told to the public at his time? It was kept unknown from the potential scientists. Yes, the fossils were made known by Gould's book who attributed tectonic plates as the cause without any empirical evidence.

quote:

---

Ye olde Evilutionist conspiracy. The Cambrian explosion was known in Darwins time, why would more fossils be a bad thing, to be covered up? Methinks you are judging people (erroneously) by your own standards. Walcotts first publication regarding the Burgess shale was in 1912, just 3 years after its discovery: 1912 field work in Alberta and British Columbia published Cambrian Brachiopoda (USGS Monograph 51)

---

Actually, Walcotts work was first published and made know to the general audience by Whittington in Rediscription of Marrella splendens, from the Burgess Shale in 1971

quote:

---

Er.. the trilobites have evolutionary origins, Spriggina, for one. The best evidence of Precambrian relationships is molecular, not morphological.

---

There is no know, valid ancestor of the trilobites. Only assumptions. Recent scientific findings even diminish the intermediate form hypothesis. An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 reports that DNA analyses have displaced taxa that used to be considered "intermediate forms" in the past:"DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary ''intermediates'' and forces us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity"Link: Just a moment... d=1037466202973_1661&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=97&fdate=12/1/1999&tdate=4/30/2000

quote:

---

POSSIBLY!!! As has been noted, there are a lot of soft bodied arthropod-a-like organisms in the Precambrian. Another hypothesis is that arthropods were descended from SSF’s. In fact there is debate as to whether the arthropods are a monophyletic clade or in fact polyphyletic.

---

Presence of "arthropod-a-like" organisms does not mean arthropods descended from organisms in the precambrian. Thats sheer observation not backed up by empirical evidence.

quote:

---

I’m glad you discovered this little prediction, which I don’t have a problem with I might add. But here lies the root of your inconsistency. Am I allowed to say that Precambrian transitionals just haven’t been found yet? No? So why are you allowed to say that Bryozoans just haven’t been found in the Cambrian yet? It’s PRECISELY what you’re doing. If Precambrian transitionals don’t exist (well, they do, but the conclusions are more tentative than vertebrate transitionals), then neither do Bryozoans. OK? Can’t have it both ways. So, by your own logic, major metazoan phyla appear in both the Precambrian, & the post-Cambrian.

---

It has been established that major metazoan phyla has appeared abruptly in the Cambrian era. Regarding logic, lets just wait and see who prediction comes true. I apologize for the inconsistency. I try to remain consistent but sometimes get carried away. Once again, my apologies.

quote:

---

I know, but what implications does the abrupt appearance of other major taxa of other kingdoms have on your creation myth/hypothesis?

---

Oh you mean the Plant Kingdom? I am quite weak in botany . I do know about the Carboniferous age (360-286 my) which has many fossils dating to it. There is no difference between species of plants from this period and plants living today. The diversity suddenly revealed in the fossil record put evolutionists into another difficulty. Because, all of a sudden, species of plants emerged, all of which possessed perfect systems. This is also something like the Cambrian explosion ... except that evolutionists call it the "Evolutionary Explosion."

quote:

---

Of course it doesn’t. I’m not refuting the Cambrian explosion. I AM pointing out to you that, if you remove your compartmentalised thinking head for one moment, the earliest fossils are single celled prokaryotes, then single celled eukaryotes, then multicellular organisms of-dubious-metazoa-ness, then true triploblastic metazoans.

---

So? Whats "compartmentalised" about that? Did I deny it? No! Did they evolve? No! Were they created? Yes!!

quote:

---

Furthermore, the phyla of the animal kingdom do not all appear at the same time.

---

All phyla of animal kingdom appearing "at once" refers to an extremely narrow window of geologic time (~5-10 million years) according to Richard Kerr.

quote:

---

In fact, & not to trivialise the Cambrian faunal diversity, there is nothing odd about the CE other than said rapid diversity. Other than the rapidity, everything is in it’s proper evolutionary order. What’s the problem?

---

The problem, you ask? Correct me if I am wrong but the most widely accepted idea among naturalistic biologists has been that chordates arose from echinoderms (sea stars, sand dollars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, etc.) and that chordates in turn gave rise to vertebrates. Echinoderms are also believed to have spawned hemichordates as an evolutionary side branch. Remember the Dipleuruloid theory you have been reiterating?This scenario predicts that echinoderms, hemichordates, chordates, and vertebrates will appear sequentially in the fossil recordand that the sequence will cover a long time span, given the extensive anatomical and physiological differences among these phyla. Naturalism or Evolution would not anticipate hemichordates, chordates, or vertebrates appearing together in the early Cambrian fauna. But in recent years, researchers have found hemichordates and chordates together in the Cambrian event!! These discoveries, in and of themselves, create an insurmountable problem for the naturalistic model of evolution.Most recently, however, paleontologists have discovered craniate chordates (animals with a stiff rod-like structure along their back and a hardened or mineralized brain case) and vertebrates in early Cambrian layers. I would say this poses a lot of problems and raises arguments that questions the credibility of evolution in the light of modern scientific data.

quote:

---

You are criticising the fossil record for its alleged gaps, yet in the case of bryozoans you are appealing for gaps!!!! Ahmed, you can’t have it both ways!

---

you're right. Guess am gonna take Bryozoa as an exception.... until proven otherwise.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

550 mya? You provide evidence that destroys your own argument. The CAMBRIAN BEGINS 543 MYA!!!!

---

I don't think I was meaning to be exact. Some say it's 500 mya, some 545 mya, some 550. Statistics differ but the fact remains the same. A wide variety of mosaic living organisms and complex invertebrates appeared abruptly all "at once", i.e, within a period of ~5-10 million years.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

What do you mean 'as if?' Does that mean that you do not understand this creature?

---

No, it means "as if nature was experimenting with various designs for complex life forms to determine which would work best". Opabinia's complex physiological structures are well understood and it is as if....

quote:

---

How do you know what its vision was like?

---

Fossil interpretation. Just like the complex vision system of the trilobites, Opabinia too had a remarkable vision.

quote:

---

Yep, all unknown. I guess we need a supernatural origin for it. This is the entire argument for ID.

---

Call it ID or call it a miracle; Opabinia has no ancestors whatsoever... nor any transitional links.

quote:

---

Yes. Sooooo complex. Oooh, it must have been designed becasue we do not understand it. I'm going to look into this just as soon as I sacrifice a goat to the snow gods.

---

We understand it perfectly... thats why we reiterate its complexity.

quote:

---

Please show your calculations on this.

---

Mark my prerequisite... "IF evolution were true"; Now thats a BIG IF

quote:

---

I'm glad you noticed this. I'll tell all my paleo friends that they've had a unsolved puzzle all this time and didn't know it.

---

Do tell...

quote:

---

What about the various orders and families then? Where do they show up? This is a 'specious' argument.

---

Orders, class, and family come under Phylums and Subphylums. [QUOTE]You have been given several examples. Just because you do not accept them does not carry much weight. [/QUOTES]No examples have been given yet.

quote:

---

Yeah. ONLY 75 million years! What a joke!

---

Guess the fossil experts were "jokers" and you're the only sane guy.

quote:

---

Then what about the last 50 million or so years of the ProteroZOIC?? Why do you ignore this minor segment of time?

---

Thats irrelevant here. My argument is on the relatively extremenly short period of time the organisms took to make appearance. And these organisms were highly complex marking no transitional links nor ancestors. I gave you the examples.

quote:

---

I guess you would know. Now tell us why Gould remained an ardent evolutionist if he had such problems with the speed of evolution...

---

Why should I? Ask Gould.

quote:

---

Oh, great, another peer-reviewed scientific journal...

---

Time magazine is not credible?

quote:

---

And his own answer is? Why do you not give us all of the information here? I'm sure that Bowring had something to say about this. This is just more out of context quoting.

---

It is context. This question he posed to his "biological friends" as he calls them. Then he goes on to explain the various fossil interpretations. But he made that statement with reference to Cambrian explosion.Edge, you don't seem to be making an intellectual argument but merely baseless assertions. Mark24 has good arguments and I suggest the next time, you respond to my arguments with empirical evidence instead of sheer sarcasm. I would appreciate that Regards,
Ahmad

Patience my friend. Its not that I am avoiding your responses.. but tossing student life with chores at home, final year exams and then here is Ramadan.. hardly leaves my any time to go online and issue my responses. I will respond to yours Insha Allah Regards,
Ahmad