Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
April 27, 2017 at 11:39 pm (This post was last modified: April 27, 2017 at 11:40 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(April 27, 2017 at 10:05 pm)DarkerEnergy Wrote:
Quote:...lay-proponents of the Neo-Darwin synthesis are dogmatically opposed to recent rival naturalistic theories because they are scared of a theistic boogeyman.
Just what 'natural' alternatives' to evolutionary theory are there? Do tell.
Extended Evolution And I didn't say alternative to evolution, I said alternative to neo-Darwinism.
The extended synthesis will be adopted when it has enough weight of evidence in its favor over the modern synthesis. There does seem to be some misunderstanding of information theory on the fringes of it, though.
(April 28, 2017 at 9:50 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The extended synthesis will be adopted when it has enough weight of evidence in its favor over the modern synthesis. There does seem to be some misunderstanding of information theory on the fringes of it, though.
Not to mention it's not really non natural
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
(April 28, 2017 at 9:50 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The extended synthesis will be adopted when it has enough weight of evidence in its favor over the modern synthesis. There does seem to be some misunderstanding of information theory on the fringes of it, though.
Not to mention it's not really non natural
Not to mention it's still no where near as well supported as modern
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
April 29, 2017 at 7:32 pm (This post was last modified: April 29, 2017 at 7:34 pm by bennyboy.)
(April 27, 2017 at 11:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(April 27, 2017 at 10:05 pm)DarkerEnergy Wrote: Just what 'natural' alternatives' to evolutionary theory are there? Do tell.
Extended Evolution And I didn't say alternative to evolution, I said alternative to neo-Darwinism.
See the beauty of science is that ideas, and even bodies of ideas, evolve. New information and observations serve as evolutionary pressure-- they render some ideas obsolete and lead to new ones.
This is why religious ideas fail. They do not evolve. They do not respond to information. They will never stop trying to do the semantic shell game of fitting new observations into theories that NEVER explained them well-- because when the truth value of an idea is based on the authority from which it comes (either God or someone directly inspired by God), then that authority comes into doubt. But you can't doubt God, or the entire religion fails.
Science doesn't have that problem, because it isn't based on authority, and it's not an institution which subscribes to a dogma.
(April 21, 2017 at 1:33 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The Avalon and Cambrian era is the 5'th day of Creation, another 'day' in preparation for the purpose of the universe: mankind.
No it's not.
Where are the fossil quadrillions to the 10'th power? There is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear. From 50 to 80 percent of the animal phyla known to have existed at any time in Earth’s history appeared within no more than a few million years of one another, as the Cambrian geological era began. There is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear. The Cambrian explosion marks the first appearance of animals with skeletons, bilateral symmetry, appendages, brains, eyes (virtually every eye design that has ever existed appears simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion), and digestive tracts. This is what your guys have to say: * *http://enallagma.com/reprints/Peterson%20etal%202009%20BioEssays.pdf Page 1 - Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossils record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them ‘‘a major mystery,’’ a ‘‘challenge.’’ Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Page 2 - Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists… Kevin Peterson et al. (evolutionary biologists).
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
(April 26, 2017 at 6:48 am)Cyberman Wrote: No it's not.
Where are the fossil quadrillions to the 10'th power? There is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear. From 50 to 80 percent of the animal phyla known to have existed at any time in Earth’s history appeared within no more than a few million years of one another, as the Cambrian geological era began. There is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear. The Cambrian explosion marks the first appearance of animals with skeletons, bilateral symmetry, appendages, brains, eyes (virtually every eye design that has ever existed appears simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion), and digestive tracts. This is what your guys have to say: * *http://enallagma.com/reprints/Peterson%20etal%202009%20BioEssays.pdf Page 1 - Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossils record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them ‘‘a major mystery,’’ a ‘‘challenge.’’ Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Page 2 - Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists… Kevin Peterson et al. (evolutionary biologists).
This has been explained to you.
Soft bodies do not fossilise well and small or single celled organisms are hard to find.
Your argument that they magically poofed into existence is laughable and kinda sad.
(April 30, 2017 at 3:28 am)snowtracks Wrote: Where are the fossil quadrillions to the 10'th power?
There is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear. From 50 to 80 percent of the animal phyla known to have existed at any time in Earth’s history appeared within no more than a few million years of one another, as the Cambrian geological era began. There is no rational evolutionary scenario for explaining how a new animal phylum might appear. The Cambrian explosion marks the first appearance of animals with skeletons, bilateral symmetry, appendages, brains, eyes (virtually every eye design that has ever existed appears simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion), and digestive tracts. This is what your guys have to say: * *http://enallagma.com/reprints/Peterson%20etal%202009%20BioEssays.pdf Page 1 - Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossils record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them ‘‘a major mystery,’’ a ‘‘challenge.’’ Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Page 2 - Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists… Kevin Peterson et al. (evolutionary biologists).
This has been explained to you.
Soft bodies do not fossilise well and small or single celled organisms are hard to find.
Your argument that they magically poofed into existence is laughable and kinda sad.
"Soft bodies do not fossilise well and small or single celled organisms are hard to find." - Soft bodies do not fossilize well or not so well; researcher haven't even been searching for single cell organisms in the Precambrian era.
All soft bodies directly to all fossils for all these phyla does not support the dictums of evolutionary theory.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
(April 29, 2017 at 7:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: This is why religious ideas fail. They do not evolve. They do not respond to information.
That's not entirely true. There is the idea of progressive revelation. There is also the idea that churches gradually get corrupted and need reformation. God remains the same but our understanding changes as He changes us. That's just an outline. The notion is much more complex than that though.