|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.
Except that it isn't ... But the modern theory of evolution predicts that there will be explainable gaps in the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The Cambrian explosion is unique. You know that.
So was the Permian extinction event. So was the K-Pg extinction event. So was the break-up of Pangea and the formation of the Moon. How does a 'unique' event disprove the theory of evolution?
If I were an atheist, I would also do everything in my power to deny the Cambrian explosion or delude myself into thinking it is a "regrettable misconception", as it powerfully contradicts the theory of biologicial evolution and powerfully supports creation. If I were an atheist, I would be afraid of the implications of the Cambrian explosion.
Mere assertions. How does the Cambrian explosion contradict the theory of evolution? So far, all we have is assertions.
No. Empirical evolution has many applications in applied science.
And the theory of evolution has myriad applications in science. So there ...
Your evolutionary theory relies on a process that cannot be proven to exist.
To which process do you refer?
How do you prove that the inner-ear of a mammals evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile?
(Sigh...) Once again, the YEC community has to be schooled on the difference between evidence and proof. No on is trying to 'prove' that something happened. In this case, we simply know that it happened. The theory of evolution explains that transition.
How do you prove that a double-circulation heart can evolve from a single-circulation heart?
No one is trying t 'prove' any such thing. The theory of evolution explains the transition.
How do you prove that such evolutions are even possible?
Since they happened, the must be possible. You are not getting this. The problem is that we know changes have occurred. We also know that some processes for change actually exist. And we know that there is no evidence for supernatural intervention.
You can't - all you've got is your atheist faith in biological evolution.
We can only 'prove' with the weight of evidence, to a reasonable person. So, I agree that we cannot 'prove' anything to some people who are unwilling to learn.
Please be advised that faith is not science an that your pseudo-science doesn't impress me.
And so .... what have you got beside faith?
The fact you must deny is that all the novel organisms that appeared in the Cambrian explosion have no evolutionary history. In the Ediacaran, marine worms, jelly-fish and spongs existed and then, oh dear ... fish and trilobites and insects (for example) appear out of nowhere. Goodbye ToE.
Not really. The main difference between Ediacaran fossils and Cambrian fossils (not speaking as a biologist) is the development of hard body parts that could be preserved more readily. Hence, the "explosion". By the way, what insects do you find in the Cambrian? And how do primitive jawless of the Cambrian fish compare to a modern lake trout? How many 'explosions' do you need to get from one to the other?
What is the evolutionary link between a fish and the worms, jelly-fish and sponges of the pre-Cambrian?
Search me, what do you think? There are plenty of transitional fossils in other instances. The point is that there are more 'primitive' forms in the Precambrian that were beginning to develop some of the characteristics of Cambrian life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Depends on what you mean by "the theory of evolution".
Most of us here have a pretty good idea of the topic of the forum. If you are confused, we can discuss your problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
It's SO funny how the contents of rocks are interpreted in terms of time ...
So biostratigraphy is wrong because Faith things that it is funny. Now I understand.
... when all they really are is the accidental burial of living things during the worldwide Flood. A lot of them is considered to be a time period when there was a huge growth of living things; a paucity of them is considered to be an "extinction event." SO funny.
Hilarious! Ignorance and denial win again! I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Oh I hardly dare think of what would happen, everything would just come apart at the seams I guess, if a fine scientist such as yourself ever recognized that an uneducated creationist really might be right and standard geology wrong about something.
I'm mot the least bit concerned. First, I seriously doubt that will happen; and second, my my mind doesn't shatter with the the introduction of new information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
What I would expect you to have trouble with is an idea that completely contradicts yours.
Well, that's false expectation. I do not have any problem with hare-brained, unsupported ideas that contradict my own. They are feeble and will die a natural death. On the other hand, I do not have a problem with valid ideas that contradict mine either. I can accept progress and do not live in a permanent intellectual box defined by religious myth. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So let me see if I can be clearer:
Nonsense. If there were a better explanation of all the evidence I would have no problem accepting a contradictory idea.What I would expect you to have trouble with is an idea that proves the ToE is false and completely contradicts the notion of time periods in Geology. Your telling me that something is better does not meet that requirement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The theory of common descent certainly offers me no practical use, but the OP asks if the ToCD offers any practical use to applied science - so far none have come to light.
Fine, common descent is not useful to you, nor in the area of your choosing. Other people find it useful in their areas of interest. Thank you for your opinion. What is going to be your next revelation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
In that case, it's failed. ToE can't explain the Cambrian explosion, for starters.
Except that even Darwin had an explanation a century and a half ago. That basic explanation still stands.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your atheist belief system (aka evolution) is contradicted by the evidence.
Another argument by assertion. Your opinion is noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Homo sapiens have been dated as 200, 000 years old? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Deary me ... the delusions and nonsense you evolutionists are forced to come up with!
Now there's a cogent argument! I'm sure that everyone here is now convinced. Why have you held back such profound reasoning till now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The OP asks for practical uses for the theory of common descent, not for ToE.
So, does this mean that you accept the existence of practical uses for the theory of evolution, just not for common ancestry? Actually, in this thread there has been a lot of mixing of the two concepts, even by yourself IIRC.
Thank you, but I'm aware that a scientific theory is not proven.
Are you also aware the 'proof' is not a criterion for a theory? Are you also aware that , as scientists, we consider 'scientific proof' to be the weight of the evidence for a theory? A common mistake among YECs.
1. You say you can't "prove" that the inner-ear of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. This could mean you observed it happening ... but somehow I doubt that's the case.
Actually, I say that it is the best explanation for the evidence. I do not "know" (your sense of the word) nor do I "prove" anything. See above. It would seem that "proof" applies to YEC and alcohol, which may not be a coincidence.
2. You cannot demonstrate (prove) that the inner-ear of a mammal is even capable of evolving from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. (This is like saying, "I know the Pope is controlled by aliens", but you can't so much as prove that aliens exist.) It seems to me that your claim to scientific knowledge consists of taking a gigantic gap in the fossil record and filling it in with your blind faith in evolution.
See above. Once again, I do not attempt to "prove" anything, at least not in the sense of absolute proof (200, I would guess) that you require. As for your comment about the Pope and aliens, I would like to see your evidence before I consider "knowing" anything about the subject.
3. The fact of the matter is, you don't "KNOW" it happened - you merely BELIEVE it happened.
I believe that it is the best explanation of the data. You really have no idea what scientists think or believe or do; and yet you cant sit at your keyboard and attribute all kinds of nonsense, innuendo and outright falsehoods about them.
4. The only reason you claim to "KNOW" it happened is that you believe there is no other possible explanation ...
Once again, I do not "know" anything in your sense of the word, but AFAIK, you have provided no evidence for any other possible explanation.
... - thus your claim to Knowledge is actually nothing more than an example of a Fallacy of the False Alternative.
If I were a YEC, I don't think I'd delve into the realm of logical fallacies for supporting argument.
5. What selection pressures could have possilbly caused the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a reptile and how did each evolutionary step (mutation) confer a survival advantage? Evolutionists can't even begin to answer such questions, of course; they simply do what they've always done ... pull out their "evolution done it (somehow)" card and bluff their way through.
The problem you have is that this evolutionary event is supported by evidence.
Is it any wonder increasing numbers of evolutionary theorists (such as Gerd Muller) are calling out current evolutionary theory for its lack of explanatory power viz-a-viz macroevolution?
All we have is the data and some known mechanisms. Unlike anti-evolutionists, we do not claim to "know" everything and there are disagreements as we learn more about evolution. I'm not sure how someone who is a proponent of the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" can be considered as a source to support your anti-evolution arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Since there are different definitions of ToE, I hesitate to say that the Cambrian explosion contradicts it.
You should have stopped there ...
Rather, I would say the Cambrian explosion contradicts the theory of common descent, which is included in some defintions of ToE.
Oh, now that's just wonderful. You 'dredge' up three quoted from edited, anti-evolution sources. (3 quotes snipped for the sake of brevity)
How convincing! Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Bullshit! You presented a YEC claim, so you are responsible for that claim.
Some how it doesn't seem odd at all to me anymore that someone who complains about being labeled a YEC has no problems reading all kinds of fallacious and nefarious motives into what scientists do and think. It's all very trollish if you ask me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Oh dear ... if this is your best defence, you're in trouble. As time goes by, the "incomplete fossil record" argument gets weaker and weaker.
"Oh dear" is right. We find more an more fossil data supporting evolution all the time.
The Chinese Cambrian fossil beds did evolutionary theory no favours at all - more soft-bodies fossils were found but no evolutionary links between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian.
As I said, Darwin had an explanation from the beginning. Who says that the fossil record must be 'complete'? The point is that we have an explanation and you do not. Please document the fossils you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Where are the fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary links between the sponges, worms and barnacles of the pre-Cambrian and the fish of the Cambrian?
What 'barnacles, worms and sponges' of the Precambrian are you talking about? Please document. You keep spouting this stuff like you know something about them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024