First off, we see abrupt appearances of very complex life forms, not simplicity to complexity. Moreover, Behe and others have shown that so-called "simple" life forms are actually very, very complex.
You are making an error. I was suggesting a relative big picture thing, and not microscale component estimates.
Whether cellular structure and basic arrangement began in the record as complex, and at that level has remained the same complexity up till now, is not the issue.
The arrangement and organization of those structures has most certainly grown more varied and/or complex. This is not disputed even by ID theorists (at least none that I have read). The Cambrian explosion did not include birds, many forms of colored flowers, insects, and both large reptiles and large mammals.
The Cambrian explosion was a growth in abundance and diversity of organisms within the same environment as life up till that time had existed. They were novel, but within an environment. Fossil evidence shows movement to new environments over time with growth in abundance and diversity in each new environment.
We see symbiosis, and remnants of symbiosis, which is indicative of life merging within environments (creating their own subenvironments).
We see, life moving from marine, to land, to air, gaining different forms of mobility and physicall traits from fish, to reptile, to bird and mammal, etc etc.
One can argue one did not spring from the other naturally, but they certainly did appear in order.
Those are astonishing exceptions which I would argue make the evo argument of life not appearing from nothing a moot point.
They aren't astonishing at all. The first fully replicating organism would be the first unique life. In reality it didn't come from nothing but it is highly unlikely we could ever find fossil evidence of the chemical precursors.
In the case of the Cambrian explosion we have a growth in diversity which is inherently new and unique forms. Again, according to the ToE they don't actually spring from nothing, but in the fossil record that is how it could appear given the inability of precursors to fossilize or perhaps the wide array of life to change between generations (or even within generations) at that time. We cannot be certain how much of that life was like species today which have drastically different forms between generations and withing their own life cycle.
Evos have never shown that fossilization is so rare that we should not expect to see most, if not nearly all, the transitional forms in evolutionary models
Are you kidding me? Can't you find that out for yourself? Go to an old cemetary before they used concrete and start digging up graves. Find out how many bodies are on the way to fossilization. Man this isn't so much evo/bio theory as it is chemistry and geochemisty.
Replacing organic material with minerals has to be body and environment specific.
"Rare" comes in because as hard as that is get that to happen, it would be harder to have entities existing within a very small time frame to fall into those exact same conditions, and harder still to have exactly the right individuals changing within the changing environment to fall into those same conditions.
If you have an entity with is likely to fossilize and in an environment conducive to that process, then you are likely to find a lot of them there, especially if many lived and dies over a long period of time.
Because I have never seen an evolutionist admit in a debate that the fossil record did not support the original evo contentions of gradualistic evolution, and yet some advocate PE as a solution to the problem they say never existed.
You must be kidding. Start reading Gould and Eldridge. They are the evos that came up with PE. They say exactly what you just said no evo has admitted. That was their life's work.
If you mean to say that the fossil record had always been in conflict, then you are simply wrong. It had not been in conflict until (ironically enough) evos studying the record found fossil based conflicts with gradual mechanisms. Until that time, no one was aware of the conflicts and so gradualism was acceptable.
An answer that we don't know is better than insisting on a wrong answer because you think the alternatives are more wrong.
Anyone saying that they know evo theory actually happened, particularly with all the currently ascribed mechanisms, would be way off. The actual answer I have ever been taught in science is that we don't actually know what happened, but evo theory is the best working model we have to date.
I am unsure where you have seen a different position stated, but I will back you up that they would be wrong.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
