Heated debate on evolution with brother

[Neo-Scholastic]

...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.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[Amarok]

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

[Minimalist]

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, if EES is viable as a theory then evidence will be accumulated to support it.... or not.

In this way it differs from your stupid fucking bible.

[Amarok]

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

[bennyboy]

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.

[snowtracks]

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).

[downbeatplumb]

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.

[snowtracks]

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.