Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem with evolution

janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.

This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:57:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

What do you mean by "Complex body plans"?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

No, its not the most complex eyes in the history of life. It was only the most complex eyes during the cambrian era.

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.

I thought there were about 50 phyla today.

But Its the same reason why there were so many diverse forms of airplanes in the early stages of developement, but today they all follow the same pattern and shape. When there was more competition, and as specific organisms within phylas began out-competing one another, entire species started going extinct. For some, there were enough species that went extinct to wipe out the entire phyla. Gradually, just like airplanes, the most efficient designs that survived the longest, lasted through and exists today.

Its not like new phyla pop up frequently and get killed off just as frequently.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:17:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:57:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

What do you mean by "Complex body plans"?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

No, its not the most complex eyes in the history of life. It was only the most complex eyes during the cambrian era.

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.

I thought there were about 50 phyla today.

But Its the same reason why there were so many diverse forms of airplanes in the early stages of developement, but today they all follow the same pattern and shape. When there was more competition, and as specific organisms within phylas began out-competing one another, entire species started going extinct. For some, there were enough species that went extinct to wipe out the entire phyla. Gradually, just like airplanes, the most efficient designs that survived the longest, lasted through and exists today.

Its not like new phyla pop up frequently and get killed off just as frequently.

You know, fully developed with eyes, tails, appendages, segmentation etc. Pretty much most of what we see today.

And I didn't say the MOST complex eye.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:19:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:17:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:57:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

What do you mean by "Complex body plans"?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

No, its not the most complex eyes in the history of life. It was only the most complex eyes during the cambrian era.

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.

I thought there were about 50 phyla today.

But Its the same reason why there were so many diverse forms of airplanes in the early stages of developement, but today they all follow the same pattern and shape. When there was more competition, and as specific organisms within phylas began out-competing one another, entire species started going extinct. For some, there were enough species that went extinct to wipe out the entire phyla. Gradually, just like airplanes, the most efficient designs that survived the longest, lasted through and exists today.

Its not like new phyla pop up frequently and get killed off just as frequently.

You know, fully developed with eyes, tails, appendages, segmentation etc. Pretty much most of what we see today.

And yet they are completely different to todays animals. Is there one that has developed like a bunny?

And I didn't say the MOST complex eye.

Are you kidding me. Yes, you did. I bolded and underlined it above so you can see.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:25:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

I think the word "Complex" is relative. Its only complex in terms of comparing it to its predecessor, but even then, its highly simplified compared to todays animals.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:35:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

The obviously didn't pop up all at once. We are starting to get a much better picture of the Cambrian explosion with a better understanding of the precambrian metazoa. We are learning that not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.

Source:
Lieberman, B. (2003). "Taking the Pulse of the Cambrian Radiation". Integrative and Comparative Biology 43 (1): 229"237. doi:10.1093/icb/43.1.229. PMID 21680426.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:51:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:19:56 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:17:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:57:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

What do you mean by "Complex body plans"?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

No, its not the most complex eyes in the history of life. It was only the most complex eyes during the cambrian era.

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.

I thought there were about 50 phyla today.

But Its the same reason why there were so many diverse forms of airplanes in the early stages of developement, but today they all follow the same pattern and shape. When there was more competition, and as specific organisms within phylas began out-competing one another, entire species started going extinct. For some, there were enough species that went extinct to wipe out the entire phyla. Gradually, just like airplanes, the most efficient designs that survived the longest, lasted through and exists today.

Its not like new phyla pop up frequently and get killed off just as frequently.

You know, fully developed with eyes, tails, appendages, segmentation etc. Pretty much most of what we see today.

And yet they are completely different to todays animals. Is there one that has developed like a bunny?

And I didn't say the MOST complex eye.

Are you kidding me. Yes, you did. I bolded and underlined it above so you can see.

"one of the most" is what I wrote.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 1:02:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Finding an instance where the fossil record is incomplete does nothing to disprove or even challenge the theory of evolution. So what you're asking for is a disingenuous request which doesn't further the conversation. There is no way to provide a complete fossil record with every link preserved in the fossil record.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 1:25:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 1:02:17 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Finding an instance where the fossil record is incomplete does nothing to disprove or even challenge the theory of evolution. So what you're asking for is a disingenuous request which doesn't further the conversation. There is no way to provide a complete fossil record with every link preserved in the fossil record.

I'm not trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution. The CURRENT theory is obviously very flawed. I am pointing out the obvious flaws.

There are plenty of scientists who believe we have a very complete fossil record. There are Precambrian layers all over the world, and not a single half-evolved trilobite fossil.

Show me a half evolved bat. Or bird. Or turtle. Go ahead, I have plenty of time.

There is no known mechanism for saltation, but saltation is the obvious answer.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 1:52:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 1:25:36 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:02:17 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Finding an instance where the fossil record is incomplete does nothing to disprove or even challenge the theory of evolution. So what you're asking for is a disingenuous request which doesn't further the conversation. There is no way to provide a complete fossil record with every link preserved in the fossil record.

I'm not trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution. The CURRENT theory is obviously very flawed. I am pointing out the obvious flaws.

There are plenty of scientists who believe we have a very complete fossil record. There are Precambrian layers all over the world, and not a single half-evolved trilobite fossil.

Show me a half evolved bat. Or bird. Or turtle. Go ahead, I have plenty of time.

There is no known mechanism for saltation, but saltation is the obvious answer.

Saltation is often confused with punctuated equilibrium; the more widely accepted theory.

Next; the fossil record is obviously not complete. It never will be. Some animals were never preserved and thus we will never have a fossil record of them.

The fossil record is obviously not part of the theory of evolution. It's evidence for evolution. So to claim that you are pointing out a problem in the theory of evolution, by pointing to a gap in the fossil record you are showing your misunderstanding of the theory.

Now, to address your point about transitional trilobite fossils:

You are asking for missing links essentially. In this case you are asking for the link between arachnomorpha and trilobite. This line of questioning has often been referred to "the missing link fallacy". This line of questioning ignores the fact that it is an impossible standard to obtain. You are basically asking for every evolutionary step preserved in the fossil for every species that has ever lived to be presented at your request while ignoring the impossibility of such a request and then tout it as evidence against evolution. This is such an absurd line of reasoning because the evidence for evolution is a convergence of evidence.

This means that while the fossil record is a portion of the evidence used to support evolution you are ignoring biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and among other fields of study which have produced evidence for evolution. I doubt you would suggest that just because we don't have a single fossil which proves that dogs came from wolves that they in fact didn't. Instead you would probably point evidence from archaeological, morphological, genetic and behavioral "fossils" converge to reveal the concestor of all dogs to be the East Asian wolf.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 3:48:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hold up a minute player. What historical hypothesis you mean by evolution?

1- Darwin"s speciation by natural selection of variations: Lamarckism, gradualism, and common ancestry.

2- Neo-Darwinism: Same as above, but rejecting Lamarckism.

3- Modern Synthesis: Retains selection of variations and common ancestry, and adds selections of mutations and "punctuated equilibrium" while getting rid of gradualism.

4- Extended Modern Synthesis: Introduces epigenetics, upgrades punctured equilibrium into emergent evolution, adds fitness landscapes and origin of replicators, and some Lamarckism is reintroduced.

As you can see these are story-telling historical hypothesis, with no actual cause/effect hypothesis, let alone empirical data to form contingent factoids.
Simply put, it is attempting to make the philosophical ideology of materialism fit the data which comes up at awkward. What we got is not a scientific method, but a historical hypothesis that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps... Somehow (but they just know it is true!).
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 7:36:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:51:36 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:19:56 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:17:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:57:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

What do you mean by "Complex body plans"?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

No, its not the most complex eyes in the history of life. It was only the most complex eyes during the cambrian era.

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.

I thought there were about 50 phyla today.

But Its the same reason why there were so many diverse forms of airplanes in the early stages of developement, but today they all follow the same pattern and shape. When there was more competition, and as specific organisms within phylas began out-competing one another, entire species started going extinct. For some, there were enough species that went extinct to wipe out the entire phyla. Gradually, just like airplanes, the most efficient designs that survived the longest, lasted through and exists today.

Its not like new phyla pop up frequently and get killed off just as frequently.

You know, fully developed with eyes, tails, appendages, segmentation etc. Pretty much most of what we see today.

And yet they are completely different to todays animals. Is there one that has developed like a bunny?

And I didn't say the MOST complex eye.

Are you kidding me. Yes, you did. I bolded and underlined it above so you can see.

"one of the most" is what I wrote.

Its still not one of the most. The only thing it had was a compound eye. So basically every insect has a better more complex eye than the trilobite. Not to mention other eyes that can focus, like humans.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 8:42:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 1:25:36 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:02:17 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Finding an instance where the fossil record is incomplete does nothing to disprove or even challenge the theory of evolution. So what you're asking for is a disingenuous request which doesn't further the conversation. There is no way to provide a complete fossil record with every link preserved in the fossil record.

I'm not trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution. The CURRENT theory is obviously very flawed. I am pointing out the obvious flaws.

There are plenty of scientists who believe we have a very complete fossil record. There are Precambrian layers all over the world, and not a single half-evolved trilobite fossil.

Show me a half evolved bat. Or bird. Or turtle. Go ahead, I have plenty of time.

There is no known mechanism for saltation, but saltation is the obvious answer.

This is absurd.

First off, there are no actual scientists who believe that we have a very complete fossil record. And by Actual scientists i mean people who are actually biologists or Archeologists and understand and know what they are talking about, not the Engineers or Computer programming "Scientsits" talked about by creationists and IDers.

But what youre asking, is basically the same as asking us to show a picture of Abraham Lincoln when he was 1 and a half years old.

By your logic, the inability to produce such a photo would mean that Abraham Lincoln was never a baby.

And besides, half a bat? Whats the other half? How would you even determine whether something is half a bat? Could you tell if a black baby is half black and half white?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 8:58:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 3:48:32 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Hold up a minute player. What historical hypothesis you mean by evolution?

1- Darwin"s speciation by natural selection of variations: Lamarckism, gradualism, and common ancestry.

2- Neo-Darwinism: Same as above, but rejecting Lamarckism.

3- Modern Synthesis: Retains selection of variations and common ancestry, and adds selections of mutations and "punctuated equilibrium" while getting rid of gradualism.

4- Extended Modern Synthesis: Introduces epigenetics, upgrades punctured equilibrium into emergent evolution, adds fitness landscapes and origin of replicators, and some Lamarckism is reintroduced.

Wow, its kinda like theyre following the evidence, huh?

As you can see these are story-telling historical hypothesis, with no actual cause/effect hypothesis, let alone empirical data to form contingent factoids.

I dont even understand what you mean here. What do you mean by "Cause/effect hypothesis"?

Simply put, it is attempting to make the philosophical ideology of materialism fit the data which comes up at awkward.

Absurd. First off, science operates off of materialism, so everything in science is made to fit materialism. Secondly, the materialism that science operates off of, isnt philosophical, its practical.

What we got is not a scientific method, but a historical hypothesis that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps... Somehow (but they just know it is true!).

Somehow? The fact that we dont know every step for every evolutionary process of every speciation event for every organism on this planet, doesnt mean we dont know some, or many, anymore than the lack of childhood photos for a specific person, doesnt mean we can conclude or doubt that this person never was a child and was born as an adult.

And by the way, we do see the gradual steps. Have you never seen the slideshow for the various stages of the eye, that demonstrate a clear, gradual increase in complexity and function?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 9:18:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

Actualy, nowadays there's consensus on the scientific community that the phyla that appeared in the cambrian explosion were around 5, not 20 as initialy thought. About the very different phylum, understand that it is in this period when multicelular organisms diversify, and thus it is expected to find striking body patterns. As to what caused the quick evolutive process (not so quick, it took around 20 million years...), some proposed causes that could easily multiply the evolution rate are: strong ecological competition which requires organisms to fill new niches and therefore new body patterns arise, mutations in HOX and other regulatory genes (mutations in regulatory genes are responsible for most rapid evolutionary changes that can be observed in the laboratory), fragmentation of the supercontinent Pannotia, extreme climatic changes as a glaciation, increase of the concentration of atmospheric oxygen, the emergence of the ability to produce collagen, the first aparition of multicellular predation, vision and swimming, etc.

In summary, it is clear it was a period of quick environmental and ecological changes, and thus a quick evolution rate is not surprising.

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

The evolution of the eye nicely explained in 4 minutes: https://www.youtube.com...

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.

Actualy, today there's an estimate that goes around 95 phylum (aproximately: 35 for animals, 12 for plants, 6 for fungi, 6 for protista, 30 for bacteria and 5 for archea). Those phylum are only for species discovered (around 1 and a half million) but you should know species on Earth are estimated to be around 20 million at minimum and 100 million at maximum.

About the phylums present in the Cambrian, I wouldn't give a lot of credit to the estimated quantity of phylum (and honestly I don't really know if there are 70 as you have said, could you put the source?), as it is very difficult to determine wether two organisms belong to the same phylum or not just by looking at the fossils and relying on molecular estimations.

This said, an evolutive process will not necessarily be accompanied by the appearance of new phylum, but by the appearance of diversity (that could mean a lot of new species, new genus, etc. and not new phylum) and of course the evolutive process, being a process of competition, is also accompanied by extinctions, so diversity is also destroyed.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 9:53:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here.

lol, let's be clear here: The guesses as to how the eye might allegedly have evolved are well documented.

'Well documented' generally means somebody catalogs eyewitness testimony, or other similar hard evidence. It does not mean "Ok, we're all making the same guesses now"

Behe has written about how complex even the simplest of photosensitivity is, and he doesn't even address the control loop necessary to do something useful with photosensitivity. I think that in fact the idea of the eye evolving is an argument from ignorance. The whole theory, really - Darwin thought life could be built on simplicity, but it turns out that life is exquisitely complex and elegant right down to the molecule. There is very little in life that can be said to be consistent with a hypothesis of it being the undirected result of environmental noise.
This space for rent.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 10:07:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 1:25:36 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:02:17 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Finding an instance where the fossil record is incomplete does nothing to disprove or even challenge the theory of evolution. So what you're asking for is a disingenuous request which doesn't further the conversation. There is no way to provide a complete fossil record with every link preserved in the fossil record.

I'm not trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution. The CURRENT theory is obviously very flawed. I am pointing out the obvious flaws.

There are plenty of scientists who believe we have a very complete fossil record. There are Precambrian layers all over the world, and not a single half-evolved trilobite fossil.

Show me a half evolved bat. Or bird. Or turtle. Go ahead, I have plenty of time.

There is no known mechanism for saltation, but saltation is the obvious answer.

Is your goal to understand reality better? If so, why don't you just study the topic further instead of making these points online? If you took some courses or read some textbooks about it, you'll probably be able to answer your own questions.

How do you know where, how, and to what extent the current theory is flawed if you only have a very basic and preliminary understanding of the current theory in the first place?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 10:45:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 9:53:51 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here.

lol, let's be clear here: The guesses as to how the eye might allegedly have evolved are well documented.

Lets be clear here: Comparative morphology is the evidence as to how the eye might have evolved.

'Well documented' generally means somebody catalogs eyewitness testimony, or other similar hard evidence. It does not mean "Ok, we're all making the same guesses now"

Since eyewitness testimony is meaningless in science, you appear to be using some form of nebulous, generalized definition of "Well documented". Why not come down from the laymen generalized discussions and actually discuss this from a scientific perspective?

Behe has written about how complex even the simplest of photosensitivity is, and he doesn't even address the control loop necessary to do something useful with photosensitivity. I think that in fact the idea of the eye evolving is an argument from ignorance. The whole theory, really - Darwin thought life could be built on simplicity, but it turns out that life is exquisitely complex and elegant right down to the molecule. There is very little in life that can be said to be consistent with a hypothesis of it being the undirected result of environmental noise.

Funny, it feels as though Behe is moving the goalpost. Now that we have a good explanation as to a pathway of how the eye formed, Behe now moves back to saying "Well, okay, but the first photosensitive cells that formed the eye to begin with was too complex to have evolved by chance!"

And who said this was undirected? Natural selection directs and guides it. The keyword here is "Selection". You know, as in Selects.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 11:07:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:45:46 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:53:51 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here.

lol, let's be clear here: The guesses as to how the eye might allegedly have evolved are well documented.

Lets be clear here: Comparative morphology is the evidence as to how the eye might have evolved.

'Well documented' generally means somebody catalogs eyewitness testimony, or other similar hard evidence. It does not mean "Ok, we're all making the same guesses now"

Since eyewitness testimony is meaningless in science, you appear to be using some form of nebulous, generalized definition of "Well documented". Why not come down from the laymen generalized discussions and actually discuss this from a scientific perspective?

I'm sure you're getting to this. A lot of people want to be thought of as an expert in something. There are laypeople who put in the real hard work and become actual experts in a field. Then there are laypeople who remain laypeople and take the lazy path of attempting to project themselves as experts in something. A 3rd year undergraduate in a relevant field can usually tell the difference after about 5 minutes of conversation. It's bizarre and frustrating to interact with those people, isn't it?

Behe has written about how complex even the simplest of photosensitivity is, and he doesn't even address the control loop necessary to do something useful with photosensitivity. I think that in fact the idea of the eye evolving is an argument from ignorance. The whole theory, really - Darwin thought life could be built on simplicity, but it turns out that life is exquisitely complex and elegant right down to the molecule. There is very little in life that can be said to be consistent with a hypothesis of it being the undirected result of environmental noise.

Funny, it feels as though Behe is moving the goalpost. Now that we have a good explanation as to a pathway of how the eye formed, Behe now moves back to saying "Well, okay, but the first photosensitive cells that formed the eye to begin with was too complex to have evolved by chance!"

And who said this was undirected? Natural selection directs and guides it. The keyword here is "Selection". You know, as in Selects.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 11:13:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Show me every irrational number between 0 and 1.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 11:27:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 11:13:41 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Show me every irrational number between 0 and 1.

Let Q be the ordered set of all irrational numbers. Then P = \{q_i \in Q \forall i s.t. q_i < 1\}.

Do I win? Hopefully without having to get into G-delta sets?

Alright, I'll let janesix answer the question.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 12:19:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 8:58:18 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/1/2015 3:48:32 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Hold up a minute player. What historical hypothesis you mean by evolution?

1- Darwin"s speciation by natural selection of variations: Lamarckism, gradualism, and common ancestry.

2- Neo-Darwinism: Same as above, but rejecting Lamarckism.

3- Modern Synthesis: Retains selection of variations and common ancestry, and adds selections of mutations and "punctuated equilibrium" while getting rid of gradualism.

4- Extended Modern Synthesis: Introduces epigenetics, upgrades punctured equilibrium into emergent evolution, adds fitness landscapes and origin of replicators, and some Lamarckism is reintroduced.

Wow, its kinda like theyre following the evidence, huh?

Or rather, trying to prove the hypothesis with just-so stories rather than going where the evidence lead you, and admitting ignorance when you lack data.

http://starrythoughts.weebly.com...

As you can see these are story-telling historical hypothesis, with no actual cause/effect hypothesis, let alone empirical data to form contingent factoids.

I dont even understand what you mean here. What do you mean by "Cause/effect hypothesis"?

It is a prediction based on knowledge about what the result will be of a given action. In other words, experimentation. Science. Not story telling.

Simply put, it is attempting to make the philosophical ideology of materialism fit the data which comes up at awkward.

Absurd. First off, science operates off of materialism, so everything in science is made to fit materialism. Secondly, the materialism that science operates off of, isnt philosophical, its practical.

In correct; the scientific method is made from immaterial axioms such as: The world exists, there is such thing as truth, we are capable of learning some of that truth, mathematical axioms are valid, the principles of logic such as causality are valid, the world is orderly and have constant laws governing it, etc.
Good thing that you mentioned that the materialism isn't philosophical. Science is voluntarily materialist; it doesn't address issues which it cannot measure.

A good definition of science is: "Knowledge obtained through the scientific method". The scientific method relies upon careful observation and repeatable experiments. Since the observations and results are often made in such a way that they are independent of human bias, the knowledge obtained in such a manner is considered reliable. So the argument I often hear is: "The Theory of Evolution is scientific, but Intelligent Design and Creation Science are not". None of the three is science. The argument can't be won by proponent of the ToE unless science is defined as: "An opinion, not necessarily supported by observation or experimentation, that does not involve any supernatural power".

What we got is not a scientific method, but a historical hypothesis that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps... Somehow (but they just know it is true!).

Somehow? The fact that we dont know every step for every evolutionary process of every speciation event for every organism on this planet, doesnt mean we dont know some, or many, anymore than the lack of childhood photos for a specific person, doesnt mean we can conclude or doubt that this person never was a child and was born as an adult.

And by the way, we do see the gradual steps. Have you never seen the slideshow for the various stages of the eye, that demonstrate a clear, gradual increase in complexity and function?

The problem is that the foundational claims of the ToE cannot be shown to not be a fantasy, or even plausible. The childhood photos deductive reasoning is similarly used by design advocates.

Different eyes in species have different levels of complexity. That is not evidence that eyes evolved from nothing to the complex eyes of today or that there is progeny between species. It is only evidence that there are different types of eyes of current species. If there was something like gradual growth of limbs and eye sockets, rather than species remaining virtually the same for millions of years before disappearing and being replaced by other species, then that would be evidence.
If you are talking about a model, I have yet to see one that is not embarrassingly oversimplified just-so (or at least "could-have") stories. The simplest eye vision system consists of retina, optic nerve, thalamus, complex biochemical code, and visual cortex that translates the biochemical code. Apparently, useless unconnected 'sensors' (effectively a tumor) popping up around a certain area is supposed to be an eye.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 12:40:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 11:27:29 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/1/2015 11:13:41 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Show me every irrational number between 0 and 1.

Let Q be the ordered set of all irrational numbers. Then P = \{q_i \in Q \forall i s.t. q_i < 1\}.

Do I win? Hopefully without having to get into G-delta sets?

Alright, I'll let janesix answer the question.

Whoops, I meant to say P = \{q_i \in Q \forall i s.t. 0< q_i < 1\} is the set of all irrational numbers between 0 and 1. >__>
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 12:56:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 12:19:42 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:58:18 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/1/2015 3:48:32 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Hold up a minute player. What historical hypothesis you mean by evolution?

1- Darwin"s speciation by natural selection of variations: Lamarckism, gradualism, and common ancestry.

2- Neo-Darwinism: Same as above, but rejecting Lamarckism.

3- Modern Synthesis: Retains selection of variations and common ancestry, and adds selections of mutations and "punctuated equilibrium" while getting rid of gradualism.

4- Extended Modern Synthesis: Introduces epigenetics, upgrades punctured equilibrium into emergent evolution, adds fitness landscapes and origin of replicators, and some Lamarckism is reintroduced.

Wow, its kinda like theyre following the evidence, huh?

Or rather, trying to prove the hypothesis with just-so stories rather than going where the evidence lead you, and admitting ignorance when you lack data.

http://starrythoughts.weebly.com...

No, if scientists were truly ignoring the evidence, and not following it, the Theory of evolution would never have changed in the first place.

There is no point in changing a theory when new evidence comes to light, if were just going to ignore the evidence in the first place.

As you can see these are story-telling historical hypothesis, with no actual cause/effect hypothesis, let alone empirical data to form contingent factoids.

I dont even understand what you mean here. What do you mean by "Cause/effect hypothesis"?

It is a prediction based on knowledge about what the result will be of a given action. In other words, experimentation. Science. Not story telling.

And how do you think Evolution has failed in this respect?

Simply put, it is attempting to make the philosophical ideology of materialism fit the data which comes up at awkward.

Absurd. First off, science operates off of materialism, so everything in science is made to fit materialism. Secondly, the materialism that science operates off of, isnt philosophical, its practical.

In correct; the scientific method is made from immaterial axioms such as: The world exists, there is such thing as truth, we are capable of learning some of that truth, mathematical axioms are valid, the principles of logic such as causality are valid, the world is orderly and have constant laws governing it, etc.

How are any of those axioms, immaterial. Although it depends on what you mean by "Truth", all of those axioms are based on evidence.

Good thing that you mentioned that the materialism isn't philosophical. Science is voluntarily materialist; it doesn't address issues which it cannot measure.

Certainly. Science uses methodological naturalism.

A good definition of science is: "Knowledge obtained through the scientific method". The scientific method relies upon careful observation and repeatable experiments. Since the observations and results are often made in such a way that they are independent of human bias, the knowledge obtained in such a manner is considered reliable. So the argument I often hear is: "The Theory of Evolution is scientific, but Intelligent Design and Creation Science are not". None of the three is science. The argument can't be won by proponent of the ToE unless science is defined as: "An opinion, not necessarily supported by observation or experimentation, that does not involve any supernatural power".

Again, how do you think evolution has failed in that respect? We have plenty of observation and have dont plenty of experimentation to determine that concepts like Common ancestry is vastly supported and, for all intents and purposes within the confounds of science, true.

I mean, how do you think we came about our understanding of genetics? Fossils? Comparative morphology?

What we got is not a scientific method, but a historical hypothesis that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps... Somehow (but they just know it is true!).

Somehow? The fact that we dont know every step for every evolutionary process of every speciation event for every organism on this planet, doesnt mean we dont know some, or many, anymore than the lack of childhood photos for a specific person, doesnt mean we can conclude or doubt that this person never was a child and was born as an adult.

And by the way, we do see the gradual steps. Have you never seen the slideshow for the various stages of the eye, that demonstrate a clear, gradual increase in complexity and function?

The problem is that the foundational claims of the ToE cannot be shown to not be a fantasy, or even plausible. The childhood photos deductive reasoning is similarly used by design advocates.

Different eyes in species have different levels of complexity. That is not evidence that eyes evolved from nothing to the complex eyes of today or that there is progeny between species. It is only evidence that there are different types of eyes of current species. If there was something like gradual growth of limbs and eye sockets, rather than species remaining virtually the same for millions of years before disappearing and being replaced by other species, then that would be evidence.
If you are talking about a model, I have yet to see one that is not embarrassingly oversimplified just-so (or at least "could-have") stories. The simplest eye vision system consists of retina, optic nerve, thalamus, complex biochemical code, and visual cortex that translates the biochemical code. Apparently, useless unconnected 'sensors' (effectively a tumor) popping up around a certain area is supposed to be an eye.

Logical deduction allows us to conclude it does.

What youre saying, is along the lines of "If i have no record of my birth parents, and no one knows who my birth parents are, it is wrong to conclude that my parents were human, unless you can produce evidence of my pregnancy when i was in a human mothers womb, and the gradual growth of myself when i was a fetus".

Yes, we may not have a complete record of your birth, we may not know who your parents were. But our understanding of human physiology and evidence of how humans are born, how humans form inside the womb, etc, lead us to conclude that, yes, your parents were humans.

This doesnt mean that it is necessarily impossible that you were created in a test tube by aliens. But from a rational, reasonable understanding of the evidence, we are sufficiently confident and justified in concluding otherwise.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 1:10:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 1:52:06 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:25:36 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:02:17 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Finding an instance where the fossil record is incomplete does nothing to disprove or even challenge the theory of evolution. So what you're asking for is a disingenuous request which doesn't further the conversation. There is no way to provide a complete fossil record with every link preserved in the fossil record.

I'm not trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution. The CURRENT theory is obviously very flawed. I am pointing out the obvious flaws.

There are plenty of scientists who believe we have a very complete fossil record. There are Precambrian layers all over the world, and not a single half-evolved trilobite fossil.

Show me a half evolved bat. Or bird. Or turtle. Go ahead, I have plenty of time.

There is no known mechanism for saltation, but saltation is the obvious answer.

Saltation is often confused with punctuated equilibrium; the more widely accepted theory.

Next; the fossil record is obviously not complete. It never will be. Some animals were never preserved and thus we will never have a fossil record of them.

The fossil record is obviously not part of the theory of evolution. It's evidence for evolution. So to claim that you are pointing out a problem in the theory of evolution, by pointing to a gap in the fossil record you are showing your misunderstanding of the theory.

Now, to address your point about transitional trilobite fossils:

You are asking for missing links essentially. In this case you are asking for the link between arachnomorpha and trilobite. This line of questioning has often been referred to "the missing link fallacy". This line of questioning ignores the fact that it is an impossible standard to obtain. You are basically asking for every evolutionary step preserved in the fossil for every species that has ever lived to be presented at your request while ignoring the impossibility of such a request and then tout it as evidence against evolution. This is such an absurd line of reasoning because the evidence for evolution is a convergence of evidence.

This means that while the fossil record is a portion of the evidence used to support evolution you are ignoring biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and among other fields of study which have produced evidence for evolution. I doubt you would suggest that just because we don't have a single fossil which proves that dogs came from wolves that they in fact didn't. Instead you would probably point evidence from archaeological, morphological, genetic and behavioral "fossils" converge to reveal the concestor of all dogs to be the East Asian wolf.

I am not looking to disprove evolution. Evolution is obvious and not something I'm disputing at all.

I am considering saltation, because that's what the evidence so far shows.

Where are the fossils that show a bird with a half-evolved wing? THOSE are the types of fossils that just AREN"T in the fossil record.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 1:18:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 8:42:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:25:36 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/1/2015 1:02:17 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:55:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:37:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/31/2015 11:22:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:45:30 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:28:24 PM, janesix wrote:
Why did all of the phyla show up suddenly , with complex body plans fully developed?

The trilobite eye was one of the most complex eyes in the history of life. Where are the proto-trilobites leading up to the ones in the Cambrian?

Why was there MORE diversity of phyla in the beginning than there are now? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There were 70 phyla in the Cambrian, and now there are only about 40.


This is simply an objection based on ignorance. The evolution of the eye is well documented and doesn't need to be explained again here. You can google it yourself and find the answer readily available.

As for the diversity thing. This is actually exactly what you would expect to find. Explosions of diversity while niches are unfilled. Niches being occupied by multiple phyla with the strongest and most adapt winning out and the rest dying.

Actually, it isn't what you'd expect to find, and thus WHY there is still a mystery and ongoing debate about the Cambrian explosion. You would EXPECT to find a vast diversity of very primitive species, not complex phyla all popping up at once with no precursers.

Also, "At once" is also misleading, as its over a span of a hundred million years or so.

Also, if the precursors were soft-bodied, they would rarely, if ever, show up in the fossil record.

Show me the fossil of a half-evolved trilobite.

Finding an instance where the fossil record is incomplete does nothing to disprove or even challenge the theory of evolution. So what you're asking for is a disingenuous request which doesn't further the conversation. There is no way to provide a complete fossil record with every link preserved in the fossil record.

I'm not trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution. The CURRENT theory is obviously very flawed. I am pointing out the obvious flaws.

There are plenty of scientists who believe we have a very complete fossil record. There are Precambrian layers all over the world, and not a single half-evolved trilobite fossil.

Show me a half evolved bat. Or bird. Or turtle. Go ahead, I have plenty of time.

There is no known mechanism for saltation, but saltation is the obvious answer.

This is absurd.

First off, there are no actual scientists who believe that we have a very complete fossil record. And by Actual scientists i mean people who are actually biologists or Archeologists and understand and know what they are talking about, not the Engineers or Computer programming "Scientsits" talked about by creationists and IDers.

But what youre asking, is basically the same as asking us to show a picture of Abraham Lincoln when he was 1 and a half years old.

By your logic, the inability to produce such a photo would mean that Abraham Lincoln was never a baby.

And besides, half a bat? Whats the other half? How would you even determine whether something is half a bat? Could you tell if a black baby is half black and half white?

I said a HALF_EVOLVED bat. Where are the fossils which show a bat with a half-evolved wing? The fossil record doesn't provide once instance of this type of fossil. There should be many, if wings took millions of years to evolve.