Heated debate on evolution with brother

[DarkerEnergy]

And here's the context of the quoted passage from Darwin http://www.bartleby.com/11/1006.html, which is clear that Darwin is talking about a debate regarding the origins of the Earth for which he felt he wasn't knowledgeable enough to give an answer for. Amazing isn't it that Darwin, a gifted and preeminent geologist and biologist, knows less about his two chosen fields than snowtracks, a knowledgless idiot.

---

---

Science has overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of speciation (including both observed speciation in the wild [London Underground Mosquito] and induced evolution in the lab [peppered moth]), of which the fossil record is actually the least important. The knowledgeless idiot, on the other hand, has only the shrill ululation of the creatard, "goddidit!"

Oh, and hie yourself off to the introductions section of the fora and tell us about yourself. If you're going to piss and moan about our manners, better that you show a modicum of good manners yourself.

---

Nice try with the out-of-context response but doesn't fly. Here's the paragraph - "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy"

Darwin was thinking that future discoveries would supply the fossil evidence. Recent science models show that out of 182 mathematically possible skeletal designs conceivable for physical life 146 showed up in the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion event per this study - paragraph from it:
"The set of viable design elements available for animals to use in building skeletons has been fully exploited. Analysis of animal skeletons in relation to the multivariate, theoretical “Skeleton Space” has shown that a large proportion of these options are used in each phylum. Here, we show that structural elements deployed in the skeletons of Burgess Shale animals (Middle Cambrian) incorporate 146 of 182 character pairs defined in this morphospace. Within 15 million years of the appearance of crown groups of phyla with substantial hard parts, at least 80 percent of skeletal design elements recognized among living and extinct marine metazoans were exploited".*
Suddenly, in shallow seas and on continental shelves life forms manifesting nearly every conceivable body plan appeared. - for the first time in Earth's history creatures sported appendages, limbs, skeletons and specialized organs.
 
*Evolutionary Exploitation of Design Options by the First Animals with Hard Skeletons R. D. K. Thomas*, Rebecca M. Shearman†, Graham W. Stewart‡ + See all authors and affiliations Science  19 May 2000:Vol. 288, Issue 5...
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/288/5469/1239.full

Ah, The Cambrian period, another thing creationists can't understand to save their lives.

The Cambrian period does indeed mark the appearance of most animal phyla, but this is not the complete picture, and it is deceptive (to say the least) to act as if most of evolution took place in this time. For one thing, most of the animals where water dwelling organisms of little complexity. Most of them are not even as complex as today's crustaceans -- forget about tetrapods such as reptiles and mammals. Secondly, most of these animals were soft bodies organisms, and it's only creatures such as Trilobites, Marella, Hallucigenia, Canadapsis, and Opabinia that had hard armored bodies for which we have well preserved forms. Everything else is lucky finds in the right place at the right time like Halkierid shells. It remains a matter of debate how many transitional fossils were left behind, or we should expect to find, though whatever the case it undermines evolutionary biology in no way whatsoever.

Here's an example of a chordate for the Burgess shale you're so convinced proves common ancestry wrong called Pikaia.



Damn, it looks just like us, eh? It's obviously as complex as animals forms today.  

What you fail to address is the well documented evolution of fish, the transition from fish to tetrapod, the evolution of reptiles, the evolution of mammals, and the extremely well documented evolution of hominids. You also appear to be unaware of cytochrome c, DNA sequencing, chromosome 2, and a host of other biochemical and homological evidence for evolution. My hunch though is that you've never seen the evidence because you didn't want to, or you're just pretending to be ignorant so you can waste peoples time.





Do tell how this "disproves" evolution. Of course, you could just admit you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you're just repeating shit you read on creationist websites -- that would suffice too.