Sorry to jump in here, but it is a quiet, snowy day and I don't care to go out and brave the element.
quote:
Firstly, What cite are you talking about? Secondly, there is no "evidence" that the exoskeleton of the arthropods (trilobites) evolve from the annelids (spriggina).
You mean other than the fact that it has morphologic similarities and occurs earlier than trilobites? Okay, perhaps to an absolutist, you are correct. However, most scientists would agree that the presence of a possible precursor to trilobites supports the idea of evolution.
quote:
"It’s a common misconception that something must be halfway for it to be a transitional. Does Archaeopteryx have half a wing?"
A: Archaeoptryx does not have half a wing 'cause its not a "dino-bird", in the first place. I would say using Archaeopteryx as a transition example is a bigger misconception since it has been disproved otherwise long ago.
Oh, really? By whom and when? Pehaps, then, you could tell us exactly what archeopteryx is.
quote:
"Good grief! What are you talking about? How can you possibly criticise evolution with such a poor understanding of it?
A: Evolution, itself, does not make sense; let alone having a "poor understanding" of it.
Cop out...
quote:
"Hence multiple good adaptive mutations accumulate, resulting in a gradual change over time."
A: Why does that "gradual change" has to be from simple to complex but not vice versa? Which one do you think is more plausible and why?
You are dancing here. No one brought up the 'simple to complex' scenario but you. In fact, evolution does not require this ordering, there are plenty of bacteria around to show this.
[quote]"This is becoming tedious. There is strong evidence of major phyla appearing in the Precambrian. I’ve been here before, if you’re not going to read what I write, I see no reason in repeating myself.
A: You don't seem to understand. I'll Richard Fortey (an evolutionist) put it, so maybe you will undersatand what I am trying to say:
[i]"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."[/quote]
[/i]
So, what do you expect? I suppose as an absolutist, you would like to have every lineage lined up in exacting detail. Sorry, but the fossil record is imperfect, the nature of the beast. Now, we could be like you and ignore the fossil record since it isn't perfect, but most scientists recognize the record as meaningful data. They also recognize temporal patterns and are willing to interpolate between them.
quote:
So why have they? Thats the challenge that still remains.
I suppose for you there are no challenges left, eh? Due to the imperfections of the fossil record (for which there are very valid reasons) there will always be challenges. I thought that was the nature of science. In fact, we have come a long way in explaining the fossil record in light of evolution. Without evolution the fossil record is an impossibly complex set of random data. If you have a better explanation, we'd be glad to hear it. But you'd better expect some questions that you can't answer.
quote:
"You mean long periods of time meaning anything over 10 million years, evolution makes no such stipulation. Secondly, there’s those irritating Precambrian animal fossils found in 900 million year old rocks."
A: The 900 million is the date as indicated by molecular clocks. I do really doubt its accuracy.
Well, then, that makes it easy for you to ignore information, doesn't it? Besides the date, as far as I can tell is not based solely on molecular clocks. There is stratigraphic and radiometric data in support.
quote:
So unless a valid conclusion is drawn about the "900 mya" and the accuracy of molecular clocks, your assertion is moot.
Nonsense. This is a strawman.
quote:
"Thirdly, evolution does not state that an organism HAS to evolve from simple to complex. "
A: But which one is more plausible, in naturalistic conditions (considering the 2Lot) without divine intervention?
A
non sequitur. However, to answer you question, the alternative with more evidence. And the SLOT has nothing to do with it. We are not going over that ground again are we?
quote:
"Precambrian origins aside. Provide POSITIVE evidence that this cannot happen. Tell me where evolution contradicts itself with actual measurable specifics. This is YOUR claim, not mine. Back up your own hypothesis, attacking other hypotheses doesn't make your own favoured one any more true without positive, evidence in its support."
A: Oh you mean the creation hypothesis? Actually, it should be called the "Creation theory".
Ah, good. There is a creation theory. Can you spell it out for us?
quote:
But anyways.... evolution claims organisms evolved from simple to complex and thats why you see all the myriad organisms all around the world some very distinct from each other. some quite similar and they all carry out their processes effectively. What evolution contradicts is the "rapid" and "abrupt" appearance of living organisms, during cambrian explosion, in a very short time having no evolutionary, transitional or ancestral links to each other.
Once again, nonsense. Have you been reading our posts at all? There is no 'abrupt' appearance unless you consider tens of millions of years to be abrupt. THere is only the APPEARANCE if abruptness brought about by imperfections of the fossil record. Fruthermore, there are very likely precursors in older rocks. I am really beginning to resent your disrespect on this issue. You are faced with data that you simply dismiss and plunge headlong without any explanation.
quote:
And the organisms that emerged were very dictinct from each other, highly complex, and fully-formed.
But not as highly complex as even later forms, and yet more complex than the older forms.... Why is that?
quote:
How can evolutionists fit this scenario in their theory?
I gather that you have not been reading our posts.
quote:
Together with that, the 2Lot also poses a considerable problem for evolution since it states the all systems (open or closed) gets more disordered and deteriorated with time.
Utter, unmitigated BS. The SLOT does not say that parts of a system cannot undergo a decrease in entropy at the expense of other parts of the system. If your understanding of thermodynamics is correct, we have a very dismal future.
quote:
Thats why sometimes its called the "time's arrow". While evolution explains that life evolved from "simple" to complex >> the very opposite of 2LoT. Thats where evolution loses the toll.
A very simplistic understanding of the second law. I can see that you get most of your scientific information from creaionist websites.
quote:
Now if creation theory was applied to it, everything makes perfect sense. Each organism in their respective phylas were all created. With conscious mechanism only can a system sustain its order. And that is exactly what creation theory states... the presense of divine intervention.
Who defies the second law that you revere so much.
quote:
You are wrong. I am talking about basic increases of complexity seen in the Precambrian.
A: But the organisms in the precambrian were already complex. The Ediacaran fauna were highly complex as the organisms in the cambrian era. [/quote]
This is pretty interesting coming from someone who actually denied that there was life in the Precambrian a couple of weeks ago. Now you are saying that Ediacaran life forms were highly complex! Well, complex compared to what? Trilobites? Just what does this do to your Cambrian explosion? Doesn't sound so explosive any more!
What a riot! Stop it Ahmad! You are cracking me up! By the way, just to be technical it is not the Cambrian Era, but the Cambrian Period.
[quote]"I HAVE shown you valid Precambrian intermediates. You don’t accept them, what can I do? I don’t pretend to show you DEFINATE transitionals, but they are valid!"
quote:
Wow.. indefinite but valid? You haven't shown me any intermediates or transitionals.... yet.
Wrong, you have simply not accepted them. Perhaps you could clarify things by telling us what you would accept as a transitional.
quote:
"Like I said, unbacked assertions. There is no POSITIVE, TESTABLE, FALSIFIABLE evidence of creation."
A: But IC and CE are both testable and falsifiable. If it can be shown that systems can be reducibly complex or that IC does not exist in any system, then you have the theory falsified!
If it can be shown, with valid fossil evidence, that Cambrian explosion was not really and explosion...
(actually, you have done this yourself, Ahmad)
quote:
... but an evolutionary change which occurred step-by-step and transitionals exist between different species, then you the explosion falsified.
I understand you don't.
quote:
Until then.... they are strong, positive, testable evidence for creation
At the risk of repeating the question... such as?
quote:
"Bryozoans don’t appear in the Cambrian, they appear in the Ordovician. Ergo not all Phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. Simple. Was I not clear on this?"
Except the bryozoans, name me one another animal phyla that doesn't appear in the cambrian explosion. Surely the exception of one phyla does not falsify cambrian explosion, now does it?
But it is a
challenge to your story is it not? YOu are willing to reject evolution based on the fact that it is challenged to explain certain phenomena. Why not hold your own 'theory' to the same standards?
quote:
"Because the ancestors lived deep in the Precambrian, were generally small, soft bodied, & not numerous? What a crazy whacked out explanation that was!"
A: The Ediacarans were highly complex, I should say. And very weird. What did Ediacarans evolve from?
There you go again! Ediacaran life that didn't exist before, is now 'highly complex' Oh, and 'weird' too. Now perhaps you can tell us how complex these organisms are and how weird they are. Please quantify this weirdness. Are they more weird than Cambrian fauna?
quote:
"Excellent. You agree that Spriggina is a potential intermediate annelid-arthropod, then? By your own definition, you should do."
So spriggina is a cross between annelids and arthropods? Does it have half of everything?
Oh, is that one of your requirements for a transitional? Sounds to me like something gleaned from a thorough study of creationist websites. Not very scientific but good propaganda.
quote:
"If an intermediate proto-echinoderm/chordate intermediate fossil is discovered before it got a notochord, it doesn’t invalidate the fossil as a potential intermediate. It doesn't have to have half of everything. Creationist strawman."
So, in evolutionist criterias, what should a potential intermediate have? Provide the criterias first. As far as I know, an intermediate species itself mean "half-way" >> intermediate or transitional. How do you explain it? Evolutionist strawman!!
No, that would not be the evolutionist position. Of course I wouldn't expect you to know that position because you fail to comprehend any of our posts.
quote:
My bet is that the creationists assertion is wrong BECAUSE bryozoans appeared when creationists say they didn’t. Also, see cnidarians, above.
A: Maybe you didn't read what I asked... save the bryozoans, what other animal phyla had their go AFTER the cambrian
On this I cannot say, but why not ask about some orders or classes? Seems like they should have been around at the Cambrian slow burn according to you. You have been asked this before. Why have you avoided the question?
So, are you going to avoid the 'challenge' of the bryozoans?
quote:
"None. So what? Bryozoans appear after the Ce. Period. Creationist assertion 2/ blown out of the water."
A: I did stand corrected, didn't I? Thats why I rephrased my question. I admit that the only phyla that appear after the cambrian era, i.e, the Ordovician era, is Bryozoa. Thats the ONLY phyla appearing after the cambrian era. I am asking for any other? If not, then surely the appearance of one phyla after the cambrian era does not dispute the abrupt appearance of the rest of the phylas at cambrian era and precambrian.
No, but it does dispute your version of how the Cambrian slow burn occurred.
quote:
"Cnidarians (annelids), see above. The Ediacarans too, if you don’t want them to be ancestors of the Cambrian phyla, you choose."
A: But the Ediacarans are very much different from the organisms appearing at the cambrian era.
Of course. They probably evolved.
quote:
It does not depend on my choice, as I can be wrong many times. Show me valid evidence linking ancestry or transitionals with organisms at the cambrian era... as well as that appeared in the Precambrian. Ediacarans are strange organisms and quite complex and quite intelligent,...
Egad! Now they are intelligent! What have we been doing for the last billion years! All we've got is some splindly little excuse of a space station. This is certan evidence of degradation!
quote:
... And I agree with you. Many of the very best cnidarian fossils date back to the time when animals first appear in the fossil record, the Vendian. But most of them, especially the corals, made their appearcane at the cambrian era during the cambrian explosion.
So, as I see it, you are saying that most animals appeared on earth during the early Cambrian. So where are the mammal fossils in the Cambrian System?
quote:
"Except Spriggina, of course, see above."
A: Spriggina did not have any half endo/exoskeleton.
Heh, heh. Funny one, Ahmad. Now who is it that requires half wings and half skeletons? WEll, creationists, of course! Just define away your problem with transitionals!
quote:
"Present in dinosaurs, but not in birds; pubic peduncle, long bony tail, & abdominal ribs. Present in birds but not dinosaurs; pygostyle, a bony sternum, a furcula,, a hypotarsus, & feathers. What do you think Archeopteryx possessed? Yup, all of them. By your own definition, a transitional. "
A: According to my definition, it should have half of from each species its transitional of.
Yes, by your definition. Now you explain why archeopteryx has some dinosaurian features and some avian features. And what if archie is a 10% transitional? Your argument really does not make sense.
quote:
"You're saying that Archaeopteryx had all the characteristics of dinosaurs abd birds (which I seriously doubt)...
Where did you get this from? I really question whether you take the time to read our posts. Or is this just a strawman artifact or yours?
quote:
What's worse is that Archy cannot be the ancestor of birds either since the discovery of bird species like Protoavis texensis predates Archaeopteryx by about 75 million years and, as described by Chatterjee, is more like modern birds than is Archaeopteryx.
However, the presence of a bird/reptile creature at this time is an interesting coincidence isn't it. By the way where are these birds in the Cambrian?
quote:
It has a V-shaped furcula, a keeled sternum, quill knobs in the hand for attachment of flight feathers, birdlike cervical vertebrae, and a birdlike skull, pelvis and pectoral apparatus. So the idea of using Archaeopteryx as a transitional or ancestral bird is nothing more than a speculative hypothesis and unless it can be proven for it to be a transitional(let alone ancestral), you claim is moot.
No, it only means that the transition occurred earlier and that archie simply retained some of the older features for a long time into the Jurassic. I think that modern thinking is that the divergence actually occurred quite early in the evolution of dinosaurs.
quote:
Evolutionist claims shown to be baseless
1. IC systems can evolve.
Actually, you are saying that we don't understand how they evolved so they must be supernatural. This is still primitive thinking.
quote:
2. Molecular and Morphological phylogenies are highly congruent.
3. There are possible intermediates fossils of metazoans in the Precambrian. (when none has been shown)
Actually, they have been shown. You have simply ignored the data because it is not absolute.
quote:
4. Cambrian explosion coincides with the Theory of Evolution.
Actually, it does. You are still debating Darwin. The modern synthesis of evolution explains the Cambrian slow burn. I am wondering how many times we have to tell you this.
quote:
5. Archaeopteryx is a transitional dino-bird.
Archeopteryx is an intermediate form that probably diverged from the main dinosaur line early. It is not just a coincidence that it precedes modern birds.
™ Version 4.2