|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
Regarding IC: I’m claiming victory, as I said I would in the last post if you yet again failed to produce positive evidence to back up your claim. I have asked & asked & asked for this positive evidence that IC cannot evolve. You have provided nothing of the kind. Your argument seems to be that I have to show otherwise, or you’re right. I don’t, & you’re not. It’s your claim, I’m not making one. If you can’t provide positive evidence to back that claim up, then you have an argument from incredulity, like I said all along. http://EvC Forum: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation -->EvC Forum: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation{Note from Adminnemooseus: The above link is to the "NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation" topic, which I recently closed. There was a nice discussion going on there, but it was rather badly off topic, and deserved a better home. Thus, Mark started this new topic. I thank him.} This was the first mention of IC in this thread, & YOU claim it refutes evolution.
quote: All subsequent discussion has been about asking you to back up that claim that IC can’t evolve, & that IC does, in fact, refute evolution. If you can’t show that IC can’t evolve, you don’t have an argument. Read & reread this next paragraph until you understand it: You have no positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve. Therefore, the irreducible complexity argument is moot. A non-sequitur. Without positive evidence, you cannot make a positive assertion. OK so far? I have never claimed that IC systems evolved. There is only one person making a positive assertion regarding IC, & that’s you. If you think I’m making it up, take a look back through the posts & see if you can find me making an explicit claim that IC definately evolved (in context). Given that this is the case, that you are making a claim & I'm not, it is for you to back up said claim. You can’t? Well, I'm sorry, Ahmad, you therefore have no argument. You made a claim, & I didn't. I have NOTHING I have to back up, but you do. Regarding the Cambrian explosion: What part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion. If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists. Also, what is your assertion regarding the Cambrian explosion? Are you saying that God created life at the phyla level with "multipurpose" genomes that could then evolve into the many sub-taxa, orders, classes, families that we see today, with the genetic complexity built in? If not, what? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
Thank you for your response. Now, please read the original post again, & please try to answer the specific questions. I NEVER said that IC never existed, but I DO ask you to show it couldn't have evolved, however, in order for you to have an argument that goes beyond "I'm SURE pink fairies exist" type stuff, that is. Please answer the second question, specificaly quoting the ToE's absolute refutation regarding the Cambrian explosion. "Evolution was a bit quick" isn't doing the business, mate.
quote: Please answer this question, as well. Not what you think it asks. How does your version of creation tie in with the fossil record? Tranquility Base thinks it ties in at the family level. Do you? Or perhaps the phyla level? Well? This is crucial to our argument regarding the Cambrian explosion. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: NO!!! I repeat:
quote: It is not for me to prove you wrong, it is for you to positively back up your claim. Can you show that IC cannot evolve, yes or no?
quote: quote: What I am asking is how the Cambrian explosion is relevant to your own world view? Do you maintain that animals were created at the phyla level (possibly with a multipurpose genome that allows new structures to evolve because the information was created in the genome with evolution in mind), & subsequently evolved into the various extant orders & classes, or; were species created as is, or; were families the basic unit of creation? If none of the above, then what? This question is really for clarification. Since most metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian, but (I’m guessing) no extant families appear in the Cambrian. How do you rationalise that? If the Cambrian explosion represents an act of creation, why do the sub-taxa appear later in the fossil record? Thanks, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: quote: IN-THE-WORDS-OF-BEHE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!! Behe has NOT demonstrated that IC cannot evolve. It is an argument by definition. Because Behe asserts that IC can’t evolve, therefore it can’t. SHOW that IC cant evolve, or hush, now. Been here, done that, got the T-shirt. You’re going around in circles. POSITIVELY back up your assertion with positive evidence. The say so of the definition of an ID’ist ain’t good enough.
quote: Thank you. So given polyphyletic origins are a truth, at what level, roughly? Families, orders, class? And WHEN? What are the descendants of say, early mammals? Or early reptiles? I repeat, again: What part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion? If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
It is polyphyly because all the other phyla are separate creation events & are monophyletic in themselves. Andya has gt to the crux of my argument better than I could. If the phylum level isn't the creation event, then what? Orders, classes, families? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: Data that positively shows that IC systems can’t evolve. Thus far you have presented none. I know what IC is, but I don’t know that it can’t evolve. You can present as many examples of IC systems as you like, quote Behe’s opinions as much as you like, BUT, none of this is providing what I’m asking for, nay, what is required!. It doesn’t exist, Ahmad. If it did, evolution WOULD be on the rocks.
quote: Once again, where is the POSITIVE evidence that supports your contention that IC is unevolvable?
quote: You’re doing it again, asking me to show how IC can evolve. Whether I can or can’t doesn’t support your argument at all. You need evidence that goes beyond your own incredulity, that positively supports your contention. This is what I require, & what science requires. Ultimately you present something like the cilia & say how could that evolve? That is a question, Ahmad, not evidence. Your other tack is to claim because it is IC, it couldn’t evolve, & that’s the end of that! This is an argument by definition, & also an unbacked assertion. Such things do not constitute positive evidence. No positive evidence = argument from incredulity. Next time you reply, can you come up with something that doesn’t fall into these two categories?
quote: quote: Like prokaryotes to eukaryotes to multicellular eukaryotes, you mean? All this is seen in order in the Precambrian.
quote: You’re fundamentally wrong on this score, too. Evolution predicts both increases & decreases in complexity. The Cambrian explosion is not contradicted by your claim, in fact it is entirely in order.
quote: Yes, I do deny this limit exists. Your assumption is incorrect. A progressive simple to complex trend is seen in the fossil record. Unfortunately, not everything that dies gets fossilised, but the trend is there. Abrupt appearances do not falsify evolution, it simply means that gaps exist in the fossil record. If they didn’t, intermediates & transitionals would never get found. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Bump......
Ahmad, We can take the IC argument to Schrafs thread, "How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?", if you like, since we seem to be asking the same questions. 1/ I would like to continue the Cambrian explosion "falsification" criteria here though.
quote: This was your last answer, & is patently false. Evolution makes no such prediction. A look at almost any cladogram will see the gain of as many features as are lost (generally speaking), & I'm not sure I'm any more complex than a fish, or frog, for example. So, I ask again, what part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion? If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists. It's not as easy a claim to back up as it first looks, is it? 2/ What is the significance of the Cambrian explosion to your creation POV? The argument you have touted is that major metazoan phyla appear in the lower Cambrian, & that is evidence of creation. Was there a single creation event, or many? Most classes, orders, families, genera etc appear nowhere near the Cambrian, so how are they explained? The question I was asking (poorly), was at what classification level did creation take place? Did the creator create all families with a single ancestor that subsequently radiated into it's extant genera & species? Or was the same done with classes, orders, or phyla, for example? Another way of asking the same question is at what classification level was life created polyphyletic? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
1/
quote: quote: LOL, what would you accept as a transitional eukaryote? A cell with half a mitochondria?
quote: The Cambrian explosion is in order because life first appears as single celled prokaryotes, then more complex eukaryotes appear, then simple eukaryotic multicellular organisms appear, & then more complex ones in the Cambrian.
quote: You are patently, demonstrably wrong. There is a simple to complex trend in the fossil record, but, generally speaking it culminates with the Cambrian explosion. I never said anything but, did I? I plainly said that in most cladograms traits are gained & lost, meaning no particular gain in complexity. Most cladograms being after the Cambrian explosion, of course. However, from the first fossils discovered, there is an overall trend of increasing complexity.
quote: Irrelevant to this discussion. You are telling me what refutes evolution regarding the Cambrian explosion. You are inventing strawmen when you claim what you think evolution says. Anything else that refutes evolution in the Cambrian explosion? 2/
quote: I look forward to your response. Whilst you’re researching this, do you accept evolution within genera? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
A few questions. 1/ The last coelacanth fossil was dated at about 80 million years ago, yet they exist today. Where are the missing fossils? 2/ Holocepheli (a group of cartilagenous fish) appear during the Carboniferous, throughout the Permian, not a single example is found in the Triassic, yet are found through the Jurassic to present. Where are the missing fossils? 3/ Testudines (turtles) appear briefly at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary. There is a gap of 50 million years, whereupon they become common from the late Jurassic to present. Where are the missing fossils? 4/ Monotreme mammals appear briefly in the Cretaceous, they do not appear in the fossil record again until about 5 million years ago. Where are the missing fossils? 5/ Paleognathae (e.g. Ostrich) appear briefly during the Paleocene. No more examples exist until the Miocene. Where are the missing fossils? 6/ Sphenodonts appear briefly at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary, again at the Jurassic Cretaceous boundary, & no more. There even exists a living example, the Tuatara. Where are the missing fossils? (FYI. All info taken from spindle diagrams in "Vertebrate Palaeontology". Michael J Benton. 2nd ed. 2002) I ask you to consider that potentially small populations of soft bodied organisms, that molecular evidence you have cited says exist, may not have fossilised in sufficient quantities & detail to be able to corroborate the existence of said molecular phylogeny (among others) beyond the Cambrian. But I would be interested in where the fossils in 1/ to 6/ allegedly disappeared to?
quote: Already answered:
quote: That is to say, for at least the fifth time. The first organisms to appear are single celled prokaryotes, then single celled eukaryotes, then multicellular eukaryotes. That, as I have explained, is a general increase in complexity seen in the fossil record. I have already qualified that not much more complexity appears after the Cambrian. Why would the first organisms to appear be the simplest, followed by successive increases? Let's recap; the first bacteria appear circa 3 bya, the eukaryotes appear circa 1.5 bya, then multicellular life appears 0.5 to 0.9 bya. Seems like a general increase to me. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-09-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: quote: The oldest multicellular animals date from 900 mya, in general agreement with molecular data making your point moot. Fine & dandy! So the annelid worms that crept underneath the dinosaurs fossils are where? Where are the bacteria that caused their decay? Or could I be right, god forbid, as taphonomy suggests, that soft bodied organisms fossilise much less readily than hard bodied ones? This is a patently ridiculous claim often made by creationists, that soft bodied organisms fossilise as well as hard parts. Why are the VAST majority of vertebrates fossils known only by their bones, & often by only one or two of them!? Same goes for marine molluscs & brachiopods (shells)? The FACT remains that the conditions for soft bodied preservation is much more restrictive than for hard part preservation. Conditions must exist that are almost totally antiseptic at the time of death.
quote: Soft bodied multicellular organisms only appear in the upper Precambrian because that’s when they lived, obviously. Bacteria can be found anywhere after their initial appearance, not just in Precambrian rocks.
quote: quote: But therein lies your problem, groups of organisms DO appear & disappear in the fossil record, only to appear again at a later date. Where did they go? Why did tens of millions of years pass without a single discovered example, yet the lineages clearly existed? Why would you expect to see anything but abrupt appearances when lineages can go this long without preservation? Wouldn’t it be the case, therefore, to expect transitional series to be extremely rare?
quote: Have I? Can you show me examples of prokaryotes & eukaryotes decreasing in complexity, then? That is, for five sixths of the fossil record the only change in complexity is upward? For the remaining portion, where does evolution claim that complexity MUST increase & NEVER decrease? This is a creationist strawman.
quote: Another creationist strawman, morphology MUST change over time. Says who? Who says they haven't evolved? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-31-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump.....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: That's right, Peter, Sphenodonts appear at the Tri/Jur boundary, become extinct for 50 million years ago, are re-created at the Ju/K boundary, become extinct for a further 146 million years, then, without warning are re-created again when Europeans described them again a few hundred years ago. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024