Darwinism

[icthus]

Hello again Chatpilot, (and the rest of y'all) As stated in the bible thread I would love to defend my Bible and I would like to hear your defenses for Darwinism.

Here is my question-- In the earth's crust are many layers of strata,the lowest level of strata that scientists have found with fossil remains is the Cambrian Strata. The fossil remains in this strata compare to todays animals. If evolution is genuine-where are their ancestors???-

Here is Charles Darwins answer to my question-- [to the question why we do not find rich fossilferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian System I can give no satisfactory answer..the case at present must remain inexplicable;and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained] Origin of the Species Pg.39

Since Charles Darwin cannot defend Darwinism and evolution I'd like to hear what you have to say about it. Icthus

[Madscientist]

Here is my question-- In the earth's crust are many layers of strata,the lowest level of strata that scientists have found with fossil remains is the Cambrian Strata. The fossil remains in this strata compare to todays animals. If evolution is genuine-where are their ancestors???-

I really don't know, but will transfer the question to a paleontologist in my girlfriend familly.
Perhaps that modern paleontology have an answer to that.

But as far as evolution goes, we see proof of it under our very eyes.
I'm an amateur entomologist and can testify that some species of insects we literally see evolve as the time pass.

[leo-rcc]

Let us make one thing perfectly clear, the Theory of Evolution through natural selection does not fall or stand with what Charles Darwin could and could not prove at the time. There are many discoveries made after Darwin died and therefore adjustments to the theory were made. Not in the least with the discovery of DNA and RNA. To claim the theory is false because the original creator of that theory didn't get everything 100% right in one go is just a stupid argument.

Furthermore, I really do not understand why creationists take so much effort to disprove the theory of evolution instead of focusing their attention on science and actually doing something some of it to support their claims. What an ancient book says on the topic is no more scientifically valid than me claiming Gus the magic Hippo farted the universe into existence. You need to back up a claim, trying to poke holes in other theories does nothing to support yours.

The Cambrian explosion refers to the quality of the fossil record during the first 30 million years of the Cambrian Period (roughly 570 to 500 million years ago). During that 30-million-year period, mollusks, starfish, arthropods, worms, and chordates (including vertebrates) evolved.

As Prof. Richard Dawkins wote in the Blind Watchmaker: "It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history". I thought I might put the Dawkins quote in myself since creationists love to quote Dawkins out of context. What the creationists don't tell you is that the rest of the chapter Dawkins give examples of pre-Cambrian ancestry.

In an article Dawkins wrote about ID he noted:

The "Cambrian Explosion"

Although the fossil record shows that the first multicellular animals lived about 640m years ago, the diversity of species was low until about 530m years ago. At that time there was a sudden explosion of many diverse marine species, including the first appearance of molluscs, arthropods, echinoderms and vertebrates. "Sudden" here is used in the geological sense; the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m years, which is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most of the great radiations of mammals. This rapid diversification raises fascinating questions; explanations include the evolution of organisms with hard parts (which aid fossilisation), the evolutionary "discovery" of eyes, and the development of new genes that allowed parts of organisms to evolve independently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/s...s.research

The oldest fossilized bacteria date from about 3.5 billion years ago. Two billion years later algae—organisms with cells, a nucleus, and chromosomes—appeared. Marine invertebrates with hard shells and skeletons of chitin or lime are more conducive to fossil preservation than soft-bodied creatures. Perhaps adding to the conditions that were conducive to preserving fossils during the Cambrian Period was the fact that most landmasses on the planet at that time were in the Tropics or the southern hemisphere.

For some reason, creationists think the Cambrian explosion is evidence that counts against evolution but supports their hypothesis that an invisible magical being created species individually.

For more responses to the Cambrian explosion, you can check out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html and http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full

They can also link you to actual peer reviewed scientific pages on the topic and not what a Sherwin or Ham or Hovind claim is science.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Hello again Chatpilot, (and the rest of y'all) As stated in the bible thread I would love to defend my Bible and I would like to hear your defenses for Darwinism.

SNIP some other Creationist rubbish!

Since Charles Darwin cannot defend Darwinism and evolution I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

And just when I thought you might have been OK you pulled the rug from under me by telling us you embrace what is, arguably, one of the most stupid points of view ever expressed given that it enshrines absolute ignorance and wilful denial of the available evidence at its core.

Colour me impressed ... oh I forgot ... I'm not!

All I can say is go and read some science books because, if you really believe the kind of crap your remarks above imply, your scientific education is woefully lacking and you are not only a discredit to the scientific & rational community but to the many theists who have no problem whatsoever believing in both their god and evolution.

EDIT: Oh and your ignorance shows clearly in the fact that you used the word "Darwinism" in the sense of it being a philosophy or theory, it is neither and as Leo has (rather more patiently than I) explained the theory of evolution no longer rests on Darwin but on the staggeringly huge volume of evidence that has been uncovered since.

Kyu

[lrh9]

I'm sure that at least the modern observation that bacteria can evolve to resist anti-bacterial medicines and hygiene products would convince all but the most deluded individuals that evolution by natural selection does occur. The real questions that the majority of the world population remain unconvinced of are speciation and the origin of life.

[Tiberius]

Moved to "Science" forum.

Here is my question-- In the earth's crust are many layers of strata,the lowest level of strata that scientists have found with fossil remains is the Cambrian Strata. The fossil remains in this strata compare to todays animals. If evolution is genuine-where are their ancestors???-

Firstly, I'd like to see you identify which of these fossils compare to today's animals. Granted, there are some that bear a strange resemblance, but this only backs up evolutionary theory (it's actually a prediction of it). Evolution doesn't mean that creatures will change, but that given the correct circumstances and a change in environment, they won't just die out, but adapt to survive. The Coelacanth is a good example of a fish that is alive today, and which we have fossils of dating back many millions of years ago.

Secondly, fossils do not always form when an animal dies. Having a hard structure (shell / bones) is a good indicator that fossils will form though, and it just so happens that the Cambrian "explosion" was when these creatures first evolved. The reason why we don't have "rich fossilferous deposits" is because there were hardly any animals which would fossilize in the pre-cambrian. However there are some pre-cambrian fossils: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology...ossils.htm

[icthus]

Leo and Adrian, thanks for the answers. I'll check into some of the websites you have offered. But my question is now this-where is the website or the scientist that I can lookup who is going to offer PROOF that these mollusks, worms,starfishes,etc. slowly(or rapidly) evolved into a human.

Kyu,as for your post, it has been my observation in the past that when 2 people have differing viewpoints and 1 must resort to namecalling it is typically for one of two reasons.
1.. Either he does not know enough about his position to even try to defend it
OR
2..He is to intimidated by the other man's viewpoint to try to defend his own.

Which one is it?????????????????????

Leo and Adrian,obviously we are polar opposites in our point of view,but I look forward to your answers and to many more discussions. Icthus

[leo-rcc]

Leo and Adrian, thanks for the answers. I'll check into some of the websites you have offered. But my question is now this-where is the website or the scientist that I can lookup who is going to offer PROOF that these mollusks, worms,starfishes,etc. slowly(or rapidly) evolved into a human.

That not a discussion, that is a game of hide and seek. You ask us some questions, we have to do your legwork, and then you pose another question. This is not a quiz.

So lets do things a little differently. Here is my challenge to you:

Show to me your hypothesis that your god/creator/agent did it is correct. As I stated in my first response, by trying to prove the ToE false you do nothing to support your claim. So instead of taking potshots at an established theory, whay don't you put your money where your mouth is. Assume we all accept that the Theory of Evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation is wrong. What valid scientific hypothesis do you have and what evidence is there to back it up? For a change give me a good valid scientific basis that supports Creationism.

[Tiberius]

I both agree and disagree with leo. I don't think this should just be a one sided thing, but on the other hand I am prepared to answer your questions if you are going to have an open mind (and likewise I will have an open mind when it comes to your explanations).

[icthus]

That's fair enough,Icthus