This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the fossil record is surely amazing. Organisms catastrophically buried world wide and fossilized. Those that lived at the bottom of the ocean are at the bottom slowly moving upward to those that crawled on the ground, as we move up we find larger not so mobile or intelligent, and higher still are the most mobile and intelligent. To see all the features that were accidentally created and preserved by selection is amazing. Thanks for a video with no assumptions. Great Job.
@mejc2 "Those that lived at the bottom of the ocean are at the bottom slowly moving upward to those that crawled on the ground" Often its the other way around depending on the specific species
Many agile, even flying species are always found in strata older than those containing fossil whales while land dwelling whale transitional forms are at their most agile at the oldest point.
Fossils are arranged according to their phylogeny, not necessarily by their ability. know the difference
OH thank you. There Phylogeny as determined by there location in the fossil layers. Find them lower put them earlier in the family tree. Amazing thank you. IT's obvious that the creatures that were simultaneously catastrophically buried in similar layers all over the planet were in the same stage of evolution on every continent at the same time. How lucky for us that gradualism is so evident. Gould must have been an idiot to think otherwise.
@mejc2 "There Phylogeny as determined by there location in the fossil layers." No, their phylogeny as determined by various lines of biology matched what we see in the fossil record.
Its obvious that the creatures weren't buried simoultaneously. Remember that not just animals are buried in the sediment but plants are in phylogenetic order too and different sediments are different ecosystems in the same column.
"buried in similar layers all over the planet were in the same stage of evolution on every continent at the same time"
Every continent? Not so. There isn't just biostatigraphic (distribution between strata) evidence of evolution in the fossil record but also biogeographic (distribution among continents). You would not find any one species on every continent.
Wow! I had no idea that there were no common species. You mean to say that every continent has it's own species of animals. How cool. I thought there were birds, and cats, and dogs on every continent. How foolish I am. Which continent doesn't have any of the dog species?
@mejc2 "I thought there were birds, and cats, and dogs on every continent. "
You obviously are not serious about your position here if you are willing to feign your inability to tell the difference between being native and introduced species.
Are you masturbating with deliberate ignorance or do you have a genuine challenge for the veracity of evolutionary theory?
Well, being that you are asking, I will not lie to you. I thought I was being obviously sarcastic. This whole idea that everything arose accidentally and was selected for through natural selection is bullshit. Evolutionists make observations and then make up stories around the observations. There is no way in hell that anybody "knows" where any of this shit came from but I can tell you this, accidental random mutations is bullshit.
@mejc2 I know you were being sarcastic but your remarks are egregious spats made from ignorance. You do not understnd biostratigraphy or biogeography and so you put it upon me to correct your haughtily made errors.
If you don't understand how science works then you should not be making it in your best interest to criticise it.
Let me hook you up. Evolutionary stories made up about observed data is not science.Evolutionists can and do say anything they want to. OH this trait appeared because............Just recently there was Ardi (bullshit), Ida (bullshit), bullshit explanations of the Laetoli prints, which happen to be physical empirical evidence. Face it, nobody "knows"
Please tell me you are kidding. The list of the bullshit goes on and on. If you show a cast of the Laetoli prints to any paleontologist. He will claim they are human and even tell you why. When you tell him they are supposedly 3.5 million years old, you will get the bullshit story of how they belong to some mythical creature that had feet, gate, stride, and stature exactly like modern humans. We just haven;t found it (made it up) yet.
@mejc2 "He will claim they are human and even tell you why."
No paleontologist would say they came from a modern human. They are too small and have a shape irrelgular to the outer limits of that of hodern humans.
No Paleontologist has said they're human. Neither Tuttle (1990) nor Foley (2004) the Paleontologists who analysed them determined that.
OMG. More bullshit. A two second search will provide you with any number of scientists that admit they have no idea who or what made those prints. here is a quick quote
"But just as likely, speculates Harcourt-Smith, an as yet undiscovered species left the prints. That is to say, consider the world's oldest whodunit an unsolved mystery. "
@mejc2 According to that quote they are saying its an discovered species, not a human. In other words whatever species it is they know that it wasn't homo sapiens which would not appear for another 3 million years.
Are you saying that because nobody *knows* what happened we should automatically believe a book and model we do know is wrong?
No! However, this evolutionist bullshit is just that bullshit. An undiscovered animal made human footprints. Give me a break. They make up shit as they go along. This animal is the extinct precursor of .........OH Wait! there goes one........this animal has existed unchanged for .......Soft tissue decays rapidly............soft tissue can be preserved for 80 million years......They say anything they want. It's comical actually.
@mejc2 "An undiscovered animal made human footprints."
But they aren't human footprints. They are homonid footprints that look less human than homo sapiens but more human than what we expect from A. afarensis.
Again you are giving a warped anthology of misinformation. You are giving creationist misrepresentations of facts and not the facts themselves
Human gate, human arch, human toes, human weight distribution, human size, no other animal has these features. However, they are not human because they don't fit the evolutionary story. Therefore they must have been made by some unknown creature. OR the story is bullshit.
The only thing making those footprints not human is the evolutionist fairy tale. Because those human footprints contradict evolutionism, they must not be human footprints. They must belong to some made up "homonid closely allied to humans". If you found those prints on the beach you would call them human.
"The only thing making those footprints not human"
is the fact that there aren't human fossils even close to that age but there are plenty of known species of that time that we have found the remains of that can leave footprints resembling the ones at Laetoli.
If you think one easily explainable set of relatively young footprints is enough to challenge one of the most powerful and verified theories in scientific history then you have learned nothing from creationism's campaign of failure
The Genus Australopithecus had various species around this time and all of which were bipedal (bipedalism is at least 4.4 million years old).
There is a vast list of 3 million year old fossil hominids, but not a single homo sapiens. However there are increasingly human fossils as they get younger. Only evolution explains that
Actually you are a little off topic. You were supposed to be naming an animal other than a human that could have made the Laetoli prints. I am well aware of the animals that evolutionists date at that time. However, none of them have human shaped feet or human shaped arches, or human gait. So which animal made those human footprints?
I'm exactly on topic, you asked me for an animal that can make those footprints and I gave you a whole Genus.
They were fully bipedal so they would need feet of a shape of close proximity to humans which is what we find at the Laetoli tracks.
I could ask you the same question because humans weren't around at the time the footprints were made (hence no human fossils). Only evolutionary theory has the answer, an early relative of humans
@mejc2 "However, none of them have human shaped feet or human shaped arches, or human gait."
Australopithecus afarensis did. And remember that the prints are anomalously small and shaped to fit neatly into homo sapiens' expectations (Stern, Susman 1983) but they are remarkably similar to foot reconstructions of afarensis fossils (Johanson, Edgar 1996).
You need to ignore so much about Laetoli to pretend it supports you
BZZZT. Wrong answer. Australopithecus afarensis was an ape. with ape feet. Nice try though. You keep trying, your evolutionists buddies will soon make some shit up and then you can quote their bullshit as if it were fact.
The original reconstruction of their feet was between humans and chimpanzees and similar enough to the prints. A recent find of a larger afarensis speciman (dubbed 'Kadanuumuu') reveals the feet to be even more human like.
Meanwhike an example of actual bullshit is saying that A. afarensis had 'ape' feet despite being adapted to walk on two legs
@ProcInc . "Australopithecus afarensis was an ape. with ape feet."
(cont) one wonders also what source you conclude this from. What Australopithecus fossil foot leads you to conclude that Australopithecus had (non human) 'ape feet'? It would certainly be a strong argument against a designer if this bipedal species was given chimpanzee feet to walk awkardly on.
Why are there no 3.7 million year old fossil humans to be candidates for leaving the footprints but plenty of bipedal protohumans?
You are so full o shit. 'Kadanuumuu" had no feet. What the afarensis have are knuckle walking wrists. However, evolutionists excited to make A.A. a link between ape an human, ignore the wrists which we have and focus on the feet which evolutionists have made up.
The point is that the speciman was fully bipedal. It would be preprosterous to suppose that is did not have feet adapted for that brand of walking.
The wrists of AL 288-1 had once been suggested to show knuckle walking adaptation but recent analysis of primate knuckle walking and wrist bone analysis corrects these old conclusions (Kivell TL, Schmitt D. 2009). That is especially apt since AL 288-1 shows to be otherwise adapted for bipedalism.
"ignore the wrists which we have and focus on the feet which evolutionists have made up."
Being selective is the bag of creationism, not mine. As I already pointed out you are the who needs to ignore the complete structure of facts here Including actual reconstructions of Australopithecus feet.
Not only that but you must ignore that delicate footprints preserved in layers of undisturbed volcanic ash refutes your recent global flood principle of fossilisation which is already nonsense
Evolutionists reconstructions of missing feet are not evidence. Evolutionists have corrected the knuckle walking wrists by calling the knuckle walking bone vestigial.
The question is raised that if you insist that no Australopithecus feet have been found (the navicular, talus, 1st metararsal and 1st cuneform have been) how can you assert they had "ape feet"?
The "knuckle walking" wrists were corrected when it was pointed out there is no definitive wristbone arrangement for modern knuckle knucklewalkers, not due to vestigial signature
The word "evolutionists" is silly, you're talking about scientists
why do you call scientists that make up evolutionary scenarios scientists and scientists that accept creation, creationists. If the latter are creationists then the former are clearly evolutionists.
What? you should pay me for this. Okay here it is kiddo. We use the fluids in our ears for balance. Without the proper formation of the ear canals bipedalism is a struggle. That is what the scientists were investigating.
@mejc2 "Without the proper formation of the ear canals bipedalism is a struggle"
I read the article and understand what they were investigating. I asked where in the citation it says inner ear formation is needed for bipedality. The article shows that inner ear formation makes for a more efficient bipedality but we already knew that.
Nowhere in the article are Australopiths disqualified from bipedality. It simply says ergasts and sapiens are better at it
Are you kidding? Chimps can walk bipedal also. We are just better at it. OK have it your fantasy way. the knuckle walking wrists are vestigial, The ear canal makes no difference because it is still possible to walk upright, and the invisible feet probably looked completely human. Hey what more positive evidence can a guy want.
"Chimps can walk bipedal also. We are just better at it."
Right, and Australopiths are better than chimps but not as good as humans. You seem to be only interested in the abstract of the article and not its substance or conclusions after further research
"It is concluded that any link between the characteristic dimensions of the human canals and locomotion will be more complex than a simple association with the broad categories of quadrupedal vs. bipedal behavior" (Spoor & Zonneveld '98)
@mejc2 "Hey what more positive evidence can a guy want."
Are you really willing to duplicitiously deny the existence of any and all of the innumerable multitude of human transitional fossils?
What motivates you to hold with such abrasive hubris such an irrational and indefensable position against the conclusions of all practising scientists in the respective field?
Seriously? They are only being called transitional because the biologists have been taught and believe the story. therefore they look for correlations. E.G. Tiktaalik was called a transitional fossil. They were near positive. OOPS, tetra pods were found in lower strata 18 million years before Tiktaalik. However, they were certain when they made the claim. All human knowledge, history,experiment, and experience, has never recorded or observed an animal slowly changing into another one
@mejc2 "They are only being called transitional because the biologists have been taught and believe the story"
They are called transitional forms because they are morphologically intermediate between two taxonomic groups. If we ignored the significance of them to evolutionary theory we would be stuck with fossils halfway between two groups with no way of explanation.
Tiktaalik fits the criteria of trasitional fossils, the fact its a late survivor of its group doesn't change that
@mejc2 "tetra pods were found in lower strata 18 million years before Tiktaalik"
Tetrapods weren't, a set of tracks were. We know the diversity of fish and primitive tetrapods in the Devonion was out of control. Tiktaalik was merely a speciman that was exactly intermediate between them. The tracks themselves are of a primitive tetrapod.
Although its not a problem for evolutionary theory it appears to fly in the face of your "flood fossil assortment" assertion
A primitive tetra pod? You mean several different tetra pods. Primitive? One of them was over two meters long. Also the tracks were found in a marine environment which shoots the shit out of the fresh water Tiktaalik story. But shit, your an evolutionist, you don't need facts you'll just make up a new story.
@mejc2 "Primitive? One of them was over two meters long."
Primitiveness and size are two different things. Also correct me in stating the primtive tetrapod that left these tracks is not represented by any species today just as modern tetrapods have no devonion reps. "tracks were found in a marine environment which shoots the shit out of the fresh water Tiktaalik story"
@mejc2 "...has never recorded or observed an animal slowly changing into another one"
All human history, experiment and experience has never recorded or observed a wolf change into a chihuahua. Yet we know that it happened and we are able to prove it to the day with extant intermediates and genetic sequencing.
Going back further we also have fossils combined with genes and morphology.
But we've never seen anything 'created' nor a global flood layer
That's your evidence for evolution? Any breeder, from corn to cows, can tell you that variation is no problem. However, there are limits and no one has ever been able to pass them. Variation in canines is no evidence what ever for single celled organisms accidentally acquiring traits filtered by natural selection to create everything we see.
No, it is an analogy of comparison to your silly canard of observation and experiment.
The evidence for evolution are resplendent in the summation of biological fields of study in being to explain how each of them are interrelated.
We have demonstrated the successful divergence of species and the aquisition of new behaviors, structures and genes there is no real-time observation missing to account for evolution's mechanisms
"there are limits and no one has ever been able to pass them."
Can you name any such limit that if theoretically passed would not also breaks the laws of evolutionary theory?
A more accurate statement is that if there are limits of relation between the species of the planet, nobody has ever detected nor outlined then. Instead there is a full and consistent phylogenetic tree of relationship rather that several seperate and unincorperable trees that creationism demands
"Which new structure have you observed being created by evolution?"
One of the most famous examples are cecal valves for a new structure forming within a human generation
That's an example on the macro scale, some of the best real time examples are in microorganisms such as new metabolism capabilities as well as some drastic changes such as a change from unicellularity to multicellularity (Boraas 1998)
Indeed far more than we have seen of structures being created by a magical being
Cecal valves? I was right this is terrific. You are suggesting that in three or four generations, Italian wall lizards had a random genetic mutation that created an entirely new organ and it permeated the population AND just happens to match exactly the cecal valves in other lizards. No scientist is suggesting random mutation and natural selection created the cecal valve, only evolutionists are suggesting that. Boraas? Really? unicellular colonies are not multicellular organisms
"Italian wall lizards had a random genetic mutation that created an entirely new organ and it permeated the population AND just happens to match exactly the cecal valves in other lizards"
yep. Real scientists are attributing this to the dynamic of evolution. Ignoring the fact that "evolutionists" are real scientists. What scientist has rebuked it?
If "unicellular colonies" are not multicellular organisms, which are sponges? Is a Portugeuse man O' War an organism or a colony?
"You are suggesting that in three or four generations, Italian wall lizards had a random genetic mutation that created an entirely new organ and it permeated the population AND just happens to match exactly the cecal valves in other lizards."
Well, take out "three or four generations" and replace " had a random genetic mutation" with "had developmental mutations selected for" and I agree witht he fundamental statement there. As do scientists.
No scientist thinks that those lizards had a random mutation selected for in only thirty years that created the cecal valve which is also present in other lizards. those lizards live for ten years or so in the wild. For that valve to have arisen in the manner you suggest it would have had to happen in only twenty years and coincidentally match the cecal valves in other lizards. No test have been done. However it is suspected that the DNA for the cecal valve was present in the Parent P
"No scientist thinks that those lizards had a random mutation selected for in only thirty years that created the cecal valve which is also present in other lizards. "
They do however acknowledge that evolution by Natural selection is responsible for the cecal valves. "Random mutation" is ambiguous.
"However it is suspected that the DNA for the cecal valve was present in the Parent P"
If that is or ever was suspected then it should be pointed out that such a suspicion is disproved
"High-resolution computed tomography was used to generate cross-sectional images of the bony labyrinth. Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes"Nature 369, 645 - 648 (23 June 1994)
Inner ear formation needed for bipedalism not in A.A.
@ProcInc - 'you are giving a very warped anthology of statements that no scientist would endorse' - but what else can you expect from a YEC who gets his 'science' from AIG/DI/ICR in an attempt to maintain his laughable world-view? Sadly mejc2 is another of those YECs who is unashamed about misrepresenting science and even outright lying when it suits him.
Funny how Evolution vs Creationism always takes gang sides like a religious war. The feud is nothing new, you people don't have to keep reminding us.
You're also leaving out sides. Like those of us who are aware that creationism is highly nonsense yet that evolutionism is also highly nonsense.
The CE was still sudden, even with all the data in this video. The Eukaryotes were sudden, as were humans. Evidence of the Earth being terraformed is obvious, genetic engineering is not new, but old.
Those who believe that evolution is nonsense are just as much of a crackpot as those who believe in creationism. They just are arrogant contrarians rather than religious nuts.
The Cambrian Explosion was sudden in that is was 5 million years compared to the history of the earh. 5 million years is not sudden in any other sense.
Humans were not sudden in any absolute sense either, we have a strongl record of our evolution
Raelian nonsense is no better than any other creationism
@ProcInc@ProcInc Sure evidence suggests the evolution of bi-pedal hominids, but not the modern human. Anyone with eyes to see can observe that we don't fit the equation. Stone tools to atom bombs? 5 times weaker than our primate relatives? Sensitivity to temperature unlike other animals? Really think humans are the first to genetically engineer other species? Don't be so naive.
@realguy420 Actually it does suggest the modern humans. Not some sci-fi intervention. We KNOW that humans came up with atomic weapons by themselves, it happened last century
Is there any evidence of something else existing with the ability to genetically engineer? Or are you just presupposing such an entity for convienience after coming to the unsubstantiated conclusion that everything must look engineered
b. How is being weaker positive evidence for "design"?
So yes, humans are the first the genetically engineer other species at least on earth other wise tinkering would be obvious in our genome which despite any objections form you there aren't
@ProcInc The equation is that unlike ALL other life on earth, humans cannot survive most ecological niches without constructing coats and fire. Yes 5 times physically weaker than all our supposed primate relatives. So we evolved from the same bacteria that could withstand any environment on Earth into humans that are 5 times weaker than our closest relatives, cannot survive the majority of Earth without our designed upgrade intelligence?
Many geneticists will argue our genome has been altered.
realguy420, humans can survive without any aid a great deal more ecological niches than most poikothermic species, similarly a bonobo would suffer under the same temperature parameters as an unclothed human would.
The ability to use coats and fire is our own adaptation anyway. Our closest extant relatives use tools and can master fire to say nothing of the myriad intermediates we know of. So by weaker you mean lifting stuff?
Your comment shows you have no comment. It's the same as saying "people who deny scientology may as well believe in flat earth." So you owned yourself with that one. Come back and post when you research something of substance to say.
Geosphericity is just as verified and accepted (and denied) a fact as evolution. In fact all flat-earthers deny evolution. There is no scientifically valid reason to deny evolution. You made a lot of insubstantial claims such a 'a lot of geneticists would argue that human DNA looks tinkered with'. I pressed you to name a single one and nothing.
Your profile supports lots of lunacy though so its no profound deal you would inversely deny fact
i read on some site that was a news page mammals and even birds where found is this true? also i have been trying to find some explanation for this from the evolutionist view and there are not many any suggestions
No it is not true. There are no tetrapods of any kind in the Cambrian (or Silurian or Ordavocian) Strata. Ther is nothing in the Cambrian strata that challenges the nested hierarchy of species according to evolutionary theory.
Which is a strong testament to evolution as all it would take is one.
My advice would be to search for this piece of misinformation again and check its sources if any to see what I mean
The site was either lying or sourced somebody else who was lying
@ProcInc i got it out of an austrlian newspaper i suppose it could have easily been faked i have been looking at this for some time though and there are a lot of claims like this
@ProcInc ok i looked a bit deeper and some do have fossilised birds from the cambrian time it showed a picture of the fossil is this other site also lying if they are thats not cool
A paper has recently been published in Bioessays, entitled "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion." (July 2009) by Peterson KJ, Dietrich MR, McPeek MA., Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College.
All of these researchers are evolutionary biologists who believe in Darwinian evolution, and have no connections whatsoever to any organization promoting intelligent design or creationism.
"Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal
phyla with very distinct body plans ARRIVE ON THE SCENE IN A GEOLOGICAL BLINK OF THE EYE, WITH LITTLE OR NO WARNING OF WHAT IS TO COME IN ROCKS THAT PREDATE THIS INTERVAL OF TIME...."
Yes, adding emphasis to quotations to take them out of context does seem to to the ignorant layman a perfectly reasonable thing to do but since creationists are desensitised to dishinesty it is up to me to explain that
1. A geological blink of an eye is a looooooong time. We evolved from australopiths in less than half a geological blink of an eye
2. Seeming to defy explanation is not defying epxlanation...in fact the very paper you mention goes on to discuss said explanations
The researchers admit in their paper that the Intelligent Designers have a case and that neo-Darwinism fails to explain the problems of the Cambrian explosion.
For any interested parties, simply google the paper and read the entire thing for yourself, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion"
"...in addition to serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt.
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. The Theory of Evolution exploded again...
Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, THERE IS NOT MUCH HERE THAT WE WOULD DISAGREE WITH...".
"...Darwins(16) explanation for the Cambrian explosion was that the fossil record was incomplete, but since Darwin penned his hypothesis over 150 years ago, we have learned
two immutable facts about the late Precambrian fossil record.
First, although chock full of organic forms, the Ediacaran IS REMARKABLY RETICENT WITH ITS ANIMAL ANCESTORS—besides sponges(1719) only Kimberella has received broad acceptance
"...And second, the geologic fossil record is a fairly accurate representation of biotic evolution such that both molecular clock analyses and paleoecological considerations agree that
mobile macrophagous animals are no older than about the Ediacaran itself.(14,15,21) ..."
"...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
"...Indeed, as emphasized by Erwin and Davidson,(23) early morphological disparity and the
temporal asymmetry of morphological innovations are known features of the fossil record,(24,25) AND CANNOT BE SIDESTEPPED WITH SUCH QUAINT, BUT ULTIMATELY ANTIQUATED NEO-DARWINIAN PREJUDICES..."
ProcInc - Getting all testy and hurling insults just makes it that much harder to take you seriously. You undermine your case by losing control over your emotions.
If I have spent four paragraphs justifying your alleged "insult" (describing you as a demonstrable liar) how exactly it the justification undermined by that which it justifies?
I mean, you are clearly lying about this paper being supportive of creationism. Even if I were undermining my case at least I have a case, and shouel my emotions undermine my case allegedly. The case is still there
Either way you fail immensely at attempting to deceive me or the hypothetical '3rd party'
@ProcInc whoa dude dont get mad at me i think we can have a conversation without you accusing me of lying and im sorry i spammed your comments i was asking if it was a believable site and i didnt lie thats what they said and i know the had an explanation but they are unsure of that explanation so dont make it sound like im giving false information
First of all I am not angry at all, least of all at you. At no point have you spammed the comments nor have I accused you of lying.
I did accuse your source of lying and it's a source you appear reluctant to share making it diffucult to properly evaluate.
Either way the suggestion that bird fossils have been found in the Cambrian is wrong regardless of where the information came from and under what motivation.
@ProcInc i was not reluctant to share it you are accusing me of dishonesty i wasnt dishonest i posted the site you looked it up the name of it is lightning fuse for the cambrian explosion i really wish i hadnt asked anything i feel attacked and all i did was ask if this site was reliable geeze
@ProcInc your getting angry at me for nothing man my original question was weathor or not the site was believable i wasnt even trying to disprovr or prove anything
"All of these researchers are evolutionary biologists who believe in darwinian evolution"
That's true, they have also written an article that explains the Cambrian Explosion and offers new evidence regarding it (in the field of microbiology).
Where in this article, even in the snippets you attempt to vandalise here is the Cambrian explosion regarded as an insurmountable problem? Or a problem at all since their article actually REFUTES cretards
ProcInc, your standard tactics in our discussion appear to be 1) discredit and disparage scientists who disagree with your view, and 2)complain that any information submitted is outdated.
Frankly, this is getting old and rely highlights the fact that you are dogmatic Darwinist with a real axe to grind against religion, specifically Christianity. You are an ideologue and are blind to any reasoning. Nevertheless, because it is so entertaining, I will continue our discussions.
"1. Discredit and disparage scientists who disagree with your view"
The only scientist you have presented who disagreed with "my view" was Paul Chien, who admitted himself to knowing nothing about palaeontology! In the context he was trying to argue he was not even a scientist! Give me a credible palaeontologist
2. Actually most of the alleged information you provide is out of context. The entire article you present selections of here trounce your accusations and supports me
Why is that a problem for me? When have I ever said that all types of life had to appear at once? We know that man didn't appear for millions of years after the Cambrian explosion, so obviously not all lifeforms arrived on Earth at the same exact time.
My main point here is that the transitional fossils aren't there to support gradual Darwinian evolution from the Ediacaran to the Cambrian, and that there are an awful lot of new fossils in the Cambrian that weren't there before.
Because you are exaggering the issue. None of the Cambrian finds are out of sequence fossils, they conform to evolution's predictions and cover a vast time scale.
The transitional fossils ARE there and I have listed several of them several times.
There are animals in every strata not found in previous strata (since life is changing) but we can still determine relationships
According to an article, "Cambrian Flash", written by Reasons To Believe:
"The most widely accepted idea among naturalistic biologists has been that chordates arose from echinoderms (sea stars, sand dollars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, etc.) and that chordates in turn gave rise to vertebrates. Echinoderms are also believed to have spawned hemichordates as an evolutionary side branch....
This scenario predicts that echinoderms, hemichordates, chordates, and vertebrates will appear sequentially in the fossil record—and that the sequence will cover a long time span, given the extensive anatomical and physiological differences among these phyla. Naturalism would not anticipate hemichordates, chordates, or vertebrates appearing together in the early Cambrian fauna.
But in recent years, researchers have found hemichordates and chordates together in the Cambrian event. These discoveries, in and of themselves, create an insurmountable problem for the naturalistic model.
4. Why in the name of all that is decent do you take these sites and people with NO credibility at all as sources? I mean honestly..."reasons to believe"??
Okay I'll first show the most glaring problem. It doesn't cite any of its claims yet has a reference list...the most recent article being 10 years old and most recent source being an interview with Chien (at least now I know where you got that "leading" crap from)
ProcInc, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy by disregarding information from sources you consider to be inferior or non-credible. You need to deal with the merit of the arguments themselves.
BTW, I never even copied and pasted the clinching paragraph:
"Most recently, however, paleontologists have discovered craniate chordates (animals with a stiff rod-like structure along their back and a hardened or mineralized brain case) and vertebrates in early Cambrian layers.7"
"disregarding information form sources you consider to be inferior"
I also pointed out why by showing where and why they are wrong.
I have read the 'nature'. What particular part of it is problematic?
I am aware of Haikouella, it features in my video and I describe it as a craniate.
None of this fudges the order as demonsrated in 00:27 of the video (which is a slide from the Dover Trial as part of the presentation that debunked the creationist arguments on the Cambrian fauna)
Howso? The only way you can possibly justify this claim is to assert that all information is equal evidence regardless of their source. Again, poor reasoning.
Besides, I read the "Reasons to believe" article so you don't need to copy its misinformation
If the Cambrian explosion is such strong evidence against evolution, why didn't the defense even *attempt* to address Kevin Padian's presentation at the Dover trial?
I should add to this again (to emphasise on my 8th question) that MY VIDEO ALREADY SHOWED THIS! What your obscure fundamentalist article claims was already debunked by my video (at 00:27, look at the top branches) before you even claimed it
I suggest you actually watch my videos before attempting to argue one next time
Also you didn't answer question 5. Where are the listed groups etc? (if you heard there are fish, name the species)
"Haikouicthys, myllokunmingia and possibly yunnanozoon"
all of which my video mentions by name. Do they have fins or bony spines as fish should have? Or are they simple and basal forms with more complex forms coming later progressively?
I recommend reading the article "An early Cambrian craniate-like chordate" in the Journal Nature.
Copied is part of its introduction:
"These findings indicate that Haikouella probably represents a very early craniate-like chordate that lived near the beginning of the Cambrian period during the main burst of the Cambrian explosion. These findings will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate..."
2. What god would this be? There are millions. If you want to invoke the Judeo-Christian god then remember that fossils were only formed during the flood and therefore don't even indicate a history of the Earth's population at different times.
Either way your opinion is bunk. And proper science has DEbunked it
ProcInc, I really have desire to get into a religious debate with you.
The main point I am making about your video is that the Cambrian explosion IS a big deal and has caused a fair amount of controversy in the scientific community.
You seem to be instead saying "nothing to see here, move along..." and trying to sweep it under the rug.
If you want to maintain a belief in neo-darwinism despite the evidence of the Cambrian exp that is your choice, but you shouldn't minimize the problem.
yet despite the hot air of creationists it is not any indication against evolutionary theory. The controversy is not that of evolution-no evolution. That topic is not controversial.
I am not sweeping anything under the rug I am showing that creationists are lying and the investigation of phenomena in an attempt to explain it is what science does!
Evolution, by your own admission (q7.)explains the Cambrian explosion better as it has answers
You and your creationist hacks you take as gospel are misrepresenting the issue!
What am I ignoring? that there are things in the Cambrian that aren't in the Edicaran?
Its an evolutionary trend for the fossil record to change! and with 5 million years missing from the record of course the differences would be considerable!
creationism has the real problem explaining it as I demonstrated (Q5,7)
Is your theory that the 5 million year gap between the end of the Ediacaran and the beginning of the Cambrian filled with innumerable transitional fossils that show Ediacarans transforming into Cambrians?
Is that the theory? Are you saying that if we could JUST find those fossils in the 5 million year gap (some say its less than 5 million, btw) evolution would be proven to be the true and the matter would be resolved beyond all doubt!
The Ediacaran fossil record already has several transitional forms of basal versions (roughly 150 documented genera) of the more diverse forms of the Cambrian. In five million years, yes there will definitely be change documented as there is in every.
Who says it's less than 5 mil and how long do they say?
Evolution already has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It wuld take a profound discovery to disprove it
A cambrian crab or turtle would do, cambrian trout? dolphin? starfish?
I heard a podcast on Reasons to Believe discussing the situation. If you want to listen to it the name of the Podcast is "oldest animals found in lakes, not oceans" from Science News Flash.
Anyway, the biologist, Dr. Fuz Rana, explains that the Chengjiang site is older than the Burgess shale and covers about 2-3 million years of fossils, and that it has most or all of the Burgess Shale Fossils. So these lifeforms basically develop within 2-3 million years.
anything credible? the oldest animals are actually found in the oceans by the way
Yes, the Chenjiang site is older than the burgess shale (20 million years older), its also 20 million years younger than the ediacaran-cambrian barrier and lacks the burgess shale's more complex Cambrian animals with only the simpler versions of the same group present (for instance anomalacaris is found but the more complex opabinia is not)
Don't put words in my mouth. All I know at this point is what the fossil record tells me.
Apparently most of the major life forms did appear out of thin air in the Cambrian. They aren't in the Ediacaran fossil record, then they are all over the place in the Cambrian fossil record.
Draw what conclusions you will. Its no skin off my nose. But to me it seems like a real dilemna for the neo-Darwinisist model of biological development.
Instead the Edicaran fossil record (which is up to 100my older than the Cambrian and ends 5 million years before it) has basal and simpler versions of the group in the Cambrian (which I list)
The Ediacaran biota was more diverse than you think. Over 150 genera have been decribed all with links to the specialised phyla of the Cambrian.
I just need to ask a few questions now to try and understand your twisted interpretation of the Cambrian explosion
1. Do you think 5million years is a short amount of time?
2. How do you account for life forms existing before the Cambrian at all?
3. How do you account for the multiple articles and discoveries supporting evolutionary theory with the Cambrian Period/explosion with no palaeontologist supprting even your fundamental claims?
5. You would be wring unless you are stretchign the definition of the term "fish" (which is colloquial anyway).
No sarcopterygii or actinopterygii are found, my video adresses this by showing that the earliest true fish are Ordovician and even they have no true fins.
//6. Exactly which "Darwinists" have said the Cambrian Explosion is an unanswerable, tizzying problem?//
Well, how about Darwin himself?
"To the question of why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to theseperiods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."
6. My video addresses this too. Look up what Charles Darwin said AFTER this and then take into account that this was 150 yeears ago! (since you think 5 million is brief I'm interested to see your interpretation of 150).
Would you really call Darwin a darwinist anyway? What is a "Darwinist"? Your running defintion so far appears to be 'credible scientist'.
ProcInc, I have to do some stuff but I will try to write more later. What do you think about this comment:
We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.
Stephen Jay Gould
He seems to think there is a controversy to the Cambrian Explosion, not the "nothing to see here, move along" attitude that you have...
//7. Why, out of 50 (alleged) Cambrian phyla are only 9-11 modern (out of the modern 38) and the other 41 going extinct?//
I don't know.
//8. Why are you making the same claims that my video addresses and debunks? //
With all due respect, I really don't think your video debunked anything. It's just the standard "have a guy with a British or Australian accent tell everyone they are stupid if they don't believe in evolution" routine.
7. Not only do you not know but your entire set of organisations you follow in lew of actual science ignores that this is the case instead trying to tout that there was nothing but sponges and Dickinsonia and then suddenly every Cambrian animal at once which also look just like modern animals. But it isn't like that and the sooner you accept that the better.
8. Considering what you have tried to argue against my video, the most generously I can put it is pot-kettle
//1. Do you think 5million years is a short amount of time?//
In terms of Earth's natural history 5my is a very short amount of time. The Earth is what, 4.5 billion years old? So yes, it is a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things.
Even in terms of evolutionary history 5 million years would be short. Consider that for around 3 billion years Earth history only had only single celled organisms.
1. So you are saying that something that is *relatively* short is automatically made absolutely brief? Poooooor reasoning
3. Which is more likely? a worldwide conspiracy of scientists form different cultures and faiths attempting to make a religiously neutral theory seem true. Or a small religious organisation attempting the same thing for a discredited theory?
//3. How do you account for the multiple articles and discoveries supporting evolutionary theory...//
They are written by Darwinists who want that point of view to be correct. Everything supports evolution, no matter what!
If there had been an infinite number of fossils showing a gradual development of life, that would have supported evolution. If instead we have what we have now, well then THAT supports evolution!
"If there have been an infinite number of fossils"
An infinite number is impossible (duh) what we do have is an insurmountable number. We are lucky to have fossils at all but to have so many definitive transitional fossils in a predicted pattern in concrete evidence that can not be ignored.
You are really going out of your way here trying to minimize the problem and sweep it under the rug. If the organisms were happily evolving all along why the need for all the theories(HOX, Oxygen, etc) to explain their sudden advent in the Cambrian?
Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco and has personally studied the fossils at Chengjiang site. In his opinion Darwin's tree of life has been inverted.
"You are really going out of your way here trying to minimize the problem and sweep it under the rug."
This is an explanation of the problem which always tends to minimise it. That is how science works rather than complicate it unecessarily to justify throwing up your arms in surrender.
"If the organisms were happily evolving all along why the need for all the theories"
Because we can't just leave out the facts of oxygen levels etc. We know they happened. Its how the model works
"If the organisms were happily evolving all along why the need for all the theories(HOX, Oxygen, etc) to explain their sudden advent in the Cambrian?"
Inversely you are saying that we should leave out the knowledge of HOX genes and oxygen levels increasing, why?
Not only do they explain the (relatively) rapid evolution of the fauna but its also the only model that incorperates the facts.
Your model has no explanation and leaves out the facts. That is not science.
The HOX theory is just a grasping of straws. HOX genes can only invoke DNA that is already there. The HOX gene theory does nothing to explain how the genetic codes for all the multitudes of new phyla got there to begin with.
The oxygen theory is just abiogenesis-remix. Mix some oxygen and carbon together and presto! New life forms magically appear! It's atheism of the gaps with no evidence to back it up.
he joined the faculty in 1973 and has contributed little to nothing since publishing only 6 peer reviewed papers since, none on palaeontology.
His opinions on palaeontology are of no worth. He is a self-admitted layman on the subject and his opinions contradict the entirety of credeble and publishing palaeontologists.
Why would you think his opinion would be effective?
I don't know, he seems reasonable to me. Rather than attempt to discredit him because he disagrees with you, why not just admit be honest and admit the problem.
Edicarian era = spongelike organisms and simple fauna. That's it!
Cambrian era - BAM! 50+ phyla and complex organisms appearing out of thin air with no previous fossil development.
It's a big problem, and it has the Darwinists in a tizzy.
Really, there's no need to get all huffy about it. The cambrian explosion is what it is. I'm sorry it makes you defensive, but there's no need to be afraid of the truth.
There are so many theories about the Cambrian explosion (from Darwinists as well as Intelligent Design proponents) that everything is pretty much speculation at this point.
All we know for sure is that there was an explosion of new life 540 mya, according to the fossile record.
"spongelike organisms and simple fauna. That's it!"
At least you admit that (though it is incorrect). Jonathon Wells (another ID hack) lied that before the Cambrian there was only bacteria.
However if you even look up wikipedia's Cambrian explosion entry you can see how spread out the explosion was.
You are arguing these creature appeared out of thin air? That they had no progeny? So the Edicaran biota just diappeared a few million years before these animals appeared?
I see a lot of dancing around the basic issue that the fossil record shows most or all of the major animal groups springing into existence within a very short amount of time, which is completely different than what we would have expected from neo-Darwinian evolution.
The Cambrian explosion is yet another nail in the coffin of atheism. The Big Bang, the fine tuning of the Universe, and the Cambrian explosion demonstrate that it takes much more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God!
"the fossil record shows most or all of the major animal groups springing into existence within a very short amount of time"
Dancing the around the issue? It is actually directly addressing it by demonstrating that all cambrian phyla (9-11 are modern representatives) were primitive and basal forms of their modern counterparts and appeared over a period of 5 million years (very short amount of time?)
It is now an excellent demonstration of evolution thanks to a stronger record
The Cambrian explosion is a major problem for Darwinian evolution. So much so that multiple theories are floating around from the Darwinists in an attempt to explain it away.
Let's see, there's the evolution of the eye theory spurring multiple body plan developments, HOX genes, and the oxygen theory just off the top of my head.
Books have been written about this. As much as you might like to, you cannot sweep the controversy under the rug with a little youtube video....
"The Cambrian explosion is a major problem for Darwinian evolution."
Not at all, even disregarding my last answer (which you have) the prescence of diverse life 540mya (and now with a strong older record to support it) never has been a problem for darwinian evolution as even Darwin addressed simlilar issues in his day.
The theories you list are all demonstrably factual to different extents. Explaining something is not an attempt to explain it 'away'
Listen to what I am saying. All of these theories cannot be correct. Either the organisms were previously evolving up to that point (in which case there is little no fossil evidence to back that idea up) or they all burst onto the scene at once because of HOX genes and oxygen levels. You can't have it both ways.
For those of you who might be open minded on this issue, I recommend googling Paul Chien, a leading scientist who has been to the Chengjiang site and researched this extensively.
Why not? We know that evolution is always driven by a variety of factors, why should the Cambrian be the one exception?
"You can't have it both ways."
Both ways is exactly how it happened. The organisms were evolving before and during the cambrian explosion and over a 5-10 million year period it was relatively more punctuated (You can't can't say there is no fossil evidence when my video shows photographs of the fossils themselves)
"Paul Chien, a leading scientist who has been to the Chengjiang site and researched this extensively. "
Paul Chien, really?
Chien is not a leading scientist, his only scientific involvement is as a fellow of the Discovery institute.
Researched the Chengjiang site extensively, are you kidding? By his own admission Chien has no credentials nor expertise in palaeontology. He would (and did) have no idea what he is doing
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the fossil record is surely amazing. Organisms catastrophically buried world wide and fossilized. Those that lived at the bottom of the ocean are at the bottom slowly moving upward to those that crawled on the ground, as we move up we find larger not so mobile or intelligent, and higher still are the most mobile and intelligent. To see all the features that were accidentally created and preserved by selection is amazing. Thanks for a video with no assumptions. Great Job.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Those that lived at the bottom of the ocean are at the bottom slowly moving upward to those that crawled on the ground" Often its the other way around depending on the specific species
Many agile, even flying species are always found in strata older than those containing fossil whales while land dwelling whale transitional forms are at their most agile at the oldest point.
Fossils are arranged according to their phylogeny, not necessarily by their ability. know the difference
ProcInc 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
OH thank you. There Phylogeny as determined by there location in the fossil layers. Find them lower put them earlier in the family tree. Amazing thank you. IT's obvious that the creatures that were simultaneously catastrophically buried in similar layers all over the planet were in the same stage of evolution on every continent at the same time. How lucky for us that gradualism is so evident. Gould must have been an idiot to think otherwise.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "There Phylogeny as determined by there location in the fossil layers." No, their phylogeny as determined by various lines of biology matched what we see in the fossil record.
Its obvious that the creatures weren't buried simoultaneously. Remember that not just animals are buried in the sediment but plants are in phylogenetic order too and different sediments are different ecosystems in the same column.
ProcInc 1 year ago
"buried in similar layers all over the planet were in the same stage of evolution on every continent at the same time"
Every continent? Not so. There isn't just biostatigraphic (distribution between strata) evidence of evolution in the fossil record but also biogeographic (distribution among continents). You would not find any one species on every continent.
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Wow! I had no idea that there were no common species. You mean to say that every continent has it's own species of animals. How cool. I thought there were birds, and cats, and dogs on every continent. How foolish I am. Which continent doesn't have any of the dog species?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "I thought there were birds, and cats, and dogs on every continent. "
You obviously are not serious about your position here if you are willing to feign your inability to tell the difference between being native and introduced species.
Are you masturbating with deliberate ignorance or do you have a genuine challenge for the veracity of evolutionary theory?
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Well, being that you are asking, I will not lie to you. I thought I was being obviously sarcastic. This whole idea that everything arose accidentally and was selected for through natural selection is bullshit. Evolutionists make observations and then make up stories around the observations. There is no way in hell that anybody "knows" where any of this shit came from but I can tell you this, accidental random mutations is bullshit.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I know you were being sarcastic but your remarks are egregious spats made from ignorance. You do not understnd biostratigraphy or biogeography and so you put it upon me to correct your haughtily made errors.
If you don't understand how science works then you should not be making it in your best interest to criticise it.
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Let me hook you up. Evolutionary stories made up about observed data is not science.Evolutionists can and do say anything they want to. OH this trait appeared because............Just recently there was Ardi (bullshit), Ida (bullshit), bullshit explanations of the Laetoli prints, which happen to be physical empirical evidence. Face it, nobody "knows"
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 you are giving a very warped anthology of statements that no scientist would endorse
both Ardi and Ida are invaluable transitional fossils (with the latter being sensationalised by sky news but not by scientists)
What exactly do you interpret the Laetoli footprints to be physical emperical evidence of?
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Please tell me you are kidding. The list of the bullshit goes on and on. If you show a cast of the Laetoli prints to any paleontologist. He will claim they are human and even tell you why. When you tell him they are supposedly 3.5 million years old, you will get the bullshit story of how they belong to some mythical creature that had feet, gate, stride, and stature exactly like modern humans. We just haven;t found it (made it up) yet.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "He will claim they are human and even tell you why."
No paleontologist would say they came from a modern human. They are too small and have a shape irrelgular to the outer limits of that of hodern humans.
No Paleontologist has said they're human. Neither Tuttle (1990) nor Foley (2004) the Paleontologists who analysed them determined that.
Nobody has proposed the explanation you suggested
ProcInc 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
OMG. More bullshit. A two second search will provide you with any number of scientists that admit they have no idea who or what made those prints. here is a quick quote
"But just as likely, speculates Harcourt-Smith, an as yet undiscovered species left the prints. That is to say, consider the world's oldest whodunit an unsolved mystery. "
Face it no body "knows" what happened.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 According to that quote they are saying its an discovered species, not a human. In other words whatever species it is they know that it wasn't homo sapiens which would not appear for another 3 million years.
Are you saying that because nobody *knows* what happened we should automatically believe a book and model we do know is wrong?
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
No! However, this evolutionist bullshit is just that bullshit. An undiscovered animal made human footprints. Give me a break. They make up shit as they go along. This animal is the extinct precursor of .........OH Wait! there goes one........this animal has existed unchanged for .......Soft tissue decays rapidly............soft tissue can be preserved for 80 million years......They say anything they want. It's comical actually.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "An undiscovered animal made human footprints."
But they aren't human footprints. They are homonid footprints that look less human than homo sapiens but more human than what we expect from A. afarensis.
Again you are giving a warped anthology of misinformation. You are giving creationist misrepresentations of facts and not the facts themselves
ProcInc 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Human gate, human arch, human toes, human weight distribution, human size, no other animal has these features. However, they are not human because they don't fit the evolutionary story. Therefore they must have been made by some unknown creature. OR the story is bullshit.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 First of all, it's spelt 'gait.'
Second of all they are not human size
Third of all its not some random animal, it is a homonid closely allied to humans.
Fourth, no human fossils are three million years old but there are fossils of apes with increasingly humanlike feet.
Creationists have a bad history of identifying footprints (paluxi anyone?)
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
First of all it's hominid not homonid. Touche.
The only thing making those footprints not human is the evolutionist fairy tale. Because those human footprints contradict evolutionism, they must not be human footprints. They must belong to some made up "homonid closely allied to humans". If you found those prints on the beach you would call them human.
mejc2 1 year ago
"The only thing making those footprints not human"
is the fact that there aren't human fossils even close to that age but there are plenty of known species of that time that we have found the remains of that can leave footprints resembling the ones at Laetoli.
If you think one easily explainable set of relatively young footprints is enough to challenge one of the most powerful and verified theories in scientific history then you have learned nothing from creationism's campaign of failure
ProcInc 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc
"there are plenty of known species of that time that we have found the remains of that can leave footprints resembling the ones at Laetoli. "
Name one.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Name one."
The Genus Australopithecus had various species around this time and all of which were bipedal (bipedalism is at least 4.4 million years old).
There is a vast list of 3 million year old fossil hominids, but not a single homo sapiens. However there are increasingly human fossils as they get younger. Only evolution explains that
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Actually you are a little off topic. You were supposed to be naming an animal other than a human that could have made the Laetoli prints. I am well aware of the animals that evolutionists date at that time. However, none of them have human shaped feet or human shaped arches, or human gait. So which animal made those human footprints?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Actually you are a little off topic."
I'm exactly on topic, you asked me for an animal that can make those footprints and I gave you a whole Genus.
They were fully bipedal so they would need feet of a shape of close proximity to humans which is what we find at the Laetoli tracks.
I could ask you the same question because humans weren't around at the time the footprints were made (hence no human fossils). Only evolutionary theory has the answer, an early relative of humans
ProcInc 1 year ago
@mejc2 "However, none of them have human shaped feet or human shaped arches, or human gait."
Australopithecus afarensis did. And remember that the prints are anomalously small and shaped to fit neatly into homo sapiens' expectations (Stern, Susman 1983) but they are remarkably similar to foot reconstructions of afarensis fossils (Johanson, Edgar 1996).
You need to ignore so much about Laetoli to pretend it supports you
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
BZZZT. Wrong answer. Australopithecus afarensis was an ape. with ape feet. Nice try though. You keep trying, your evolutionists buddies will soon make some shit up and then you can quote their bullshit as if it were fact.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Australopithecus afarensis was an ape."
...a bipedal ape. We're apes too, and bipedal
"with ape feet. "
The original reconstruction of their feet was between humans and chimpanzees and similar enough to the prints. A recent find of a larger afarensis speciman (dubbed 'Kadanuumuu') reveals the feet to be even more human like.
Meanwhike an example of actual bullshit is saying that A. afarensis had 'ape' feet despite being adapted to walk on two legs
ProcInc 1 year ago 2
@ProcInc . "Australopithecus afarensis was an ape. with ape feet."
(cont) one wonders also what source you conclude this from. What Australopithecus fossil foot leads you to conclude that Australopithecus had (non human) 'ape feet'? It would certainly be a strong argument against a designer if this bipedal species was given chimpanzee feet to walk awkardly on.
Why are there no 3.7 million year old fossil humans to be candidates for leaving the footprints but plenty of bipedal protohumans?
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
You are so full o shit. 'Kadanuumuu" had no feet. What the afarensis have are knuckle walking wrists. However, evolutionists excited to make A.A. a link between ape an human, ignore the wrists which we have and focus on the feet which evolutionists have made up.
mejc2 1 year ago
" 'Kadanuumuu" had no feet"
The point is that the speciman was fully bipedal. It would be preprosterous to suppose that is did not have feet adapted for that brand of walking.
The wrists of AL 288-1 had once been suggested to show knuckle walking adaptation but recent analysis of primate knuckle walking and wrist bone analysis corrects these old conclusions (Kivell TL, Schmitt D. 2009). That is especially apt since AL 288-1 shows to be otherwise adapted for bipedalism.
ProcInc 1 year ago
"ignore the wrists which we have and focus on the feet which evolutionists have made up."
Being selective is the bag of creationism, not mine. As I already pointed out you are the who needs to ignore the complete structure of facts here Including actual reconstructions of Australopithecus feet.
Not only that but you must ignore that delicate footprints preserved in layers of undisturbed volcanic ash refutes your recent global flood principle of fossilisation which is already nonsense
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Evolutionists reconstructions of missing feet are not evidence. Evolutionists have corrected the knuckle walking wrists by calling the knuckle walking bone vestigial.
mejc2 1 year ago
"Evolutionists reconstructions of missing feet"
The question is raised that if you insist that no Australopithecus feet have been found (the navicular, talus, 1st metararsal and 1st cuneform have been) how can you assert they had "ape feet"?
The "knuckle walking" wrists were corrected when it was pointed out there is no definitive wristbone arrangement for modern knuckle knucklewalkers, not due to vestigial signature
The word "evolutionists" is silly, you're talking about scientists
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
why do you call scientists that make up evolutionary scenarios scientists and scientists that accept creation, creationists. If the latter are creationists then the former are clearly evolutionists.
mejc2 1 year ago
"why do you call scientists that make up evolutionary scenarios scientists and scientists that accept creation, creationists."
Because evolutionary theory is a science while creationism isn't. I don't call scientists who formulate quantum scenarios 'quantumists'.
"Inner ear formation needed for bipedalism not in A.A."
Where in that citation did it say that inner ear formation is needed for bipedality?.
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
What? you should pay me for this. Okay here it is kiddo. We use the fluids in our ears for balance. Without the proper formation of the ear canals bipedalism is a struggle. That is what the scientists were investigating.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Without the proper formation of the ear canals bipedalism is a struggle"
I read the article and understand what they were investigating. I asked where in the citation it says inner ear formation is needed for bipedality. The article shows that inner ear formation makes for a more efficient bipedality but we already knew that.
Nowhere in the article are Australopiths disqualified from bipedality. It simply says ergasts and sapiens are better at it
ProcInc 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Are you kidding? Chimps can walk bipedal also. We are just better at it. OK have it your fantasy way. the knuckle walking wrists are vestigial, The ear canal makes no difference because it is still possible to walk upright, and the invisible feet probably looked completely human. Hey what more positive evidence can a guy want.
mejc2 1 year ago
"Chimps can walk bipedal also. We are just better at it."
Right, and Australopiths are better than chimps but not as good as humans. You seem to be only interested in the abstract of the article and not its substance or conclusions after further research
"It is concluded that any link between the characteristic dimensions of the human canals and locomotion will be more complex than a simple association with the broad categories of quadrupedal vs. bipedal behavior" (Spoor & Zonneveld '98)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Hey what more positive evidence can a guy want."
Are you really willing to duplicitiously deny the existence of any and all of the innumerable multitude of human transitional fossils?
What motivates you to hold with such abrasive hubris such an irrational and indefensable position against the conclusions of all practising scientists in the respective field?
ProcInc 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Seriously? They are only being called transitional because the biologists have been taught and believe the story. therefore they look for correlations. E.G. Tiktaalik was called a transitional fossil. They were near positive. OOPS, tetra pods were found in lower strata 18 million years before Tiktaalik. However, they were certain when they made the claim. All human knowledge, history,experiment, and experience, has never recorded or observed an animal slowly changing into another one
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "They are only being called transitional because the biologists have been taught and believe the story"
They are called transitional forms because they are morphologically intermediate between two taxonomic groups. If we ignored the significance of them to evolutionary theory we would be stuck with fossils halfway between two groups with no way of explanation.
Tiktaalik fits the criteria of trasitional fossils, the fact its a late survivor of its group doesn't change that
ProcInc 1 year ago
@mejc2 "tetra pods were found in lower strata 18 million years before Tiktaalik"
Tetrapods weren't, a set of tracks were. We know the diversity of fish and primitive tetrapods in the Devonion was out of control. Tiktaalik was merely a speciman that was exactly intermediate between them. The tracks themselves are of a primitive tetrapod.
Although its not a problem for evolutionary theory it appears to fly in the face of your "flood fossil assortment" assertion
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
A primitive tetra pod? You mean several different tetra pods. Primitive? One of them was over two meters long. Also the tracks were found in a marine environment which shoots the shit out of the fresh water Tiktaalik story. But shit, your an evolutionist, you don't need facts you'll just make up a new story.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 "Primitive? One of them was over two meters long."
Primitiveness and size are two different things. Also correct me in stating the primtive tetrapod that left these tracks is not represented by any species today just as modern tetrapods have no devonion reps. "tracks were found in a marine environment which shoots the shit out of the fresh water Tiktaalik story"
How do you figure?
"your an evolutionist" (sic)
as were the reporters of the tracks
ProcInc 1 year ago
@mejc2 "...has never recorded or observed an animal slowly changing into another one"
All human history, experiment and experience has never recorded or observed a wolf change into a chihuahua. Yet we know that it happened and we are able to prove it to the day with extant intermediates and genetic sequencing.
Going back further we also have fossils combined with genes and morphology.
But we've never seen anything 'created' nor a global flood layer
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
A wolf to a chihuahua?
That's your evidence for evolution? Any breeder, from corn to cows, can tell you that variation is no problem. However, there are limits and no one has ever been able to pass them. Variation in canines is no evidence what ever for single celled organisms accidentally acquiring traits filtered by natural selection to create everything we see.
mejc2 1 year ago
"A wolf to a chihuahua?
That's your evidence for evolution?"
No, it is an analogy of comparison to your silly canard of observation and experiment.
The evidence for evolution are resplendent in the summation of biological fields of study in being to explain how each of them are interrelated.
We have demonstrated the successful divergence of species and the aquisition of new behaviors, structures and genes there is no real-time observation missing to account for evolution's mechanisms
ProcInc 1 year ago
"there are limits and no one has ever been able to pass them."
Can you name any such limit that if theoretically passed would not also breaks the laws of evolutionary theory?
A more accurate statement is that if there are limits of relation between the species of the planet, nobody has ever detected nor outlined then. Instead there is a full and consistent phylogenetic tree of relationship rather that several seperate and unincorperable trees that creationism demands
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Which new structure have you observed being created by evolution?
this should be terrific.
mejc2 1 year ago
"Which new structure have you observed being created by evolution?"
One of the most famous examples are cecal valves for a new structure forming within a human generation
That's an example on the macro scale, some of the best real time examples are in microorganisms such as new metabolism capabilities as well as some drastic changes such as a change from unicellularity to multicellularity (Boraas 1998)
Indeed far more than we have seen of structures being created by a magical being
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
Cecal valves? I was right this is terrific. You are suggesting that in three or four generations, Italian wall lizards had a random genetic mutation that created an entirely new organ and it permeated the population AND just happens to match exactly the cecal valves in other lizards. No scientist is suggesting random mutation and natural selection created the cecal valve, only evolutionists are suggesting that. Boraas? Really? unicellular colonies are not multicellular organisms
mejc2 1 year ago
"Italian wall lizards had a random genetic mutation that created an entirely new organ and it permeated the population AND just happens to match exactly the cecal valves in other lizards"
yep. Real scientists are attributing this to the dynamic of evolution. Ignoring the fact that "evolutionists" are real scientists. What scientist has rebuked it?
If "unicellular colonies" are not multicellular organisms, which are sponges? Is a Portugeuse man O' War an organism or a colony?
ProcInc 1 year ago
"You are suggesting that in three or four generations, Italian wall lizards had a random genetic mutation that created an entirely new organ and it permeated the population AND just happens to match exactly the cecal valves in other lizards."
Well, take out "three or four generations" and replace " had a random genetic mutation" with "had developmental mutations selected for" and I agree witht he fundamental statement there. As do scientists.
...What are YOU suggesting?
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
No scientist thinks that those lizards had a random mutation selected for in only thirty years that created the cecal valve which is also present in other lizards. those lizards live for ten years or so in the wild. For that valve to have arisen in the manner you suggest it would have had to happen in only twenty years and coincidentally match the cecal valves in other lizards. No test have been done. However it is suspected that the DNA for the cecal valve was present in the Parent P
mejc2 1 year ago
"No scientist thinks that those lizards had a random mutation selected for in only thirty years that created the cecal valve which is also present in other lizards. "
They do however acknowledge that evolution by Natural selection is responsible for the cecal valves. "Random mutation" is ambiguous.
"However it is suspected that the DNA for the cecal valve was present in the Parent P"
If that is or ever was suspected then it should be pointed out that such a suspicion is disproved
ProcInc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ProcInc
"High-resolution computed tomography was used to generate cross-sectional images of the bony labyrinth. Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes"Nature 369, 645 - 648 (23 June 1994)
Inner ear formation needed for bipedalism not in A.A.
Your welcome.
mejc2 1 year ago
@ProcInc - 'you are giving a very warped anthology of statements that no scientist would endorse' - but what else can you expect from a YEC who gets his 'science' from AIG/DI/ICR in an attempt to maintain his laughable world-view? Sadly mejc2 is another of those YECs who is unashamed about misrepresenting science and even outright lying when it suits him.
KrokrX 1 year ago
I think it is funny when YECs use a time period 520 million years ago to prove a young earth.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Funny how Evolution vs Creationism always takes gang sides like a religious war. The feud is nothing new, you people don't have to keep reminding us.
You're also leaving out sides. Like those of us who are aware that creationism is highly nonsense yet that evolutionism is also highly nonsense.
The CE was still sudden, even with all the data in this video. The Eukaryotes were sudden, as were humans. Evidence of the Earth being terraformed is obvious, genetic engineering is not new, but old.
realguy420 1 year ago
@realguy420
Those who believe that evolution is nonsense are just as much of a crackpot as those who believe in creationism. They just are arrogant contrarians rather than religious nuts.
The Cambrian Explosion was sudden in that is was 5 million years compared to the history of the earh. 5 million years is not sudden in any other sense.
Humans were not sudden in any absolute sense either, we have a strongl record of our evolution
Raelian nonsense is no better than any other creationism
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc @ProcInc Sure evidence suggests the evolution of bi-pedal hominids, but not the modern human. Anyone with eyes to see can observe that we don't fit the equation. Stone tools to atom bombs? 5 times weaker than our primate relatives? Sensitivity to temperature unlike other animals? Really think humans are the first to genetically engineer other species? Don't be so naive.
realguy420 1 year ago
@realguy420 Actually it does suggest the modern humans. Not some sci-fi intervention. We KNOW that humans came up with atomic weapons by themselves, it happened last century
Is there any evidence of something else existing with the ability to genetically engineer? Or are you just presupposing such an entity for convienience after coming to the unsubstantiated conclusion that everything must look engineered
ProcInc 1 year ago
@realguy420 ALso there's no equation to fit.
5 times weaker?
a. But what reckoning are we weaker?
b. How is being weaker positive evidence for "design"?
So yes, humans are the first the genetically engineer other species at least on earth other wise tinkering would be obvious in our genome which despite any objections form you there aren't
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc The equation is that unlike ALL other life on earth, humans cannot survive most ecological niches without constructing coats and fire. Yes 5 times physically weaker than all our supposed primate relatives. So we evolved from the same bacteria that could withstand any environment on Earth into humans that are 5 times weaker than our closest relatives, cannot survive the majority of Earth without our designed upgrade intelligence?
Many geneticists will argue our genome has been altered.
realguy420 1 year ago
realguy420, humans can survive without any aid a great deal more ecological niches than most poikothermic species, similarly a bonobo would suffer under the same temperature parameters as an unclothed human would.
The ability to use coats and fire is our own adaptation anyway. Our closest extant relatives use tools and can master fire to say nothing of the myriad intermediates we know of. So by weaker you mean lifting stuff?
Name one geneticist that would argue it has
ProcInc 1 year ago
@realguy420 We stayed alive by getting smarter, chimps stayed alive by becoming 5 X stronger and have a better short term memory.
Is that too much for you to comprehend?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@realguy420 ''5 times weaker than our primate relatives?''
Correct, Humans evolved smarter, Chimps evolved 5 times stronger.
We are better at living in places where we need fire, and they are better at climbing trees, and have a better short term memmory.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@realguy420 well said sir
prettybabs25 1 year ago
@realguy420
People who deny evolution may as well believe in a flat-earth.
ZShort1985 1 year ago
@ZShort1985 Its certainly a qualifier
ProcInc 1 year ago
Your comment shows you have no comment. It's the same as saying "people who deny scientology may as well believe in flat earth." So you owned yourself with that one. Come back and post when you research something of substance to say.
realguy420 1 year ago
Geosphericity is just as verified and accepted (and denied) a fact as evolution. In fact all flat-earthers deny evolution. There is no scientifically valid reason to deny evolution. You made a lot of insubstantial claims such a 'a lot of geneticists would argue that human DNA looks tinkered with'. I pressed you to name a single one and nothing.
Your profile supports lots of lunacy though so its no profound deal you would inversely deny fact
ProcInc 1 year ago
i read on some site that was a news page mammals and even birds where found is this true? also i have been trying to find some explanation for this from the evolutionist view and there are not many any suggestions
prettybabs25 1 year ago
@prettybabs25
No it is not true. There are no tetrapods of any kind in the Cambrian (or Silurian or Ordavocian) Strata. Ther is nothing in the Cambrian strata that challenges the nested hierarchy of species according to evolutionary theory.
Which is a strong testament to evolution as all it would take is one.
My advice would be to search for this piece of misinformation again and check its sources if any to see what I mean
The site was either lying or sourced somebody else who was lying
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc i got it out of an austrlian newspaper i suppose it could have easily been faked i have been looking at this for some time though and there are a lot of claims like this
prettybabs25 1 year ago
@ProcInc ok i looked a bit deeper and some do have fossilised birds from the cambrian time it showed a picture of the fossil is this other site also lying if they are thats not cool
prettybabs25 1 year ago
A paper has recently been published in Bioessays, entitled "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion." (July 2009) by Peterson KJ, Dietrich MR, McPeek MA., Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College.
All of these researchers are evolutionary biologists who believe in Darwinian evolution, and have no connections whatsoever to any organization promoting intelligent design or creationism.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(continued - 2)
I quote from the research paper (emphasis mine throughout):
"Beginning some 555 million years ago the Earths biota CHANGED IN PROFOUND AND FUNDAMENTAL WAYS, going from an
essentially static system billions of years in existence(14,15) to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex
system WHOSE ORIGIN SEEMS TO DEFY EXPLANATION...."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(continued - 3)
"Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal
phyla with very distinct body plans ARRIVE ON THE SCENE IN A GEOLOGICAL BLINK OF THE EYE, WITH LITTLE OR NO WARNING OF WHAT IS TO COME IN ROCKS THAT PREDATE THIS INTERVAL OF TIME...."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(continued - 4)
"The abruptness of the transition between the Precambrian and the Cambrian was apparent right at the outset of our
science with the publication of Murchisons The Silurian System, a treatise that paradoxically set forth the research
agenda for numerous paleontologists in addition to serving as perennial fodder for creationists...."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
Yes, adding emphasis to quotations to take them out of context does seem to to the ignorant layman a perfectly reasonable thing to do but since creationists are desensitised to dishinesty it is up to me to explain that
1. A geological blink of an eye is a looooooong time. We evolved from australopiths in less than half a geological blink of an eye
2. Seeming to defy explanation is not defying epxlanation...in fact the very paper you mention goes on to discuss said explanations
ProcInc 2 years ago
ProcInc,
The researchers admit in their paper that the Intelligent Designers have a case and that neo-Darwinism fails to explain the problems of the Cambrian explosion.
For any interested parties, simply google the paper and read the entire thing for yourself, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion"
Thanks,
wgbutler777
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"The researchers admit in their paper that the intelligent designers have a case"
lol when? They say that they have used it as a perennial canard, but so does my video!
I have read the paper and it does nothing to support you. You either didn't read it yourself or are knowingly lying.
If these writers said that cretards had a case, you would have used that in one of your quote mines
ProcInc 2 years ago
From the paper
"...in addition to serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt.
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. The Theory of Evolution exploded again...
Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, THERE IS NOT MUCH HERE THAT WE WOULD DISAGREE WITH...".
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(cont)
"...Darwins(16) explanation for the Cambrian explosion was that the fossil record was incomplete, but since Darwin penned his hypothesis over 150 years ago, we have learned
two immutable facts about the late Precambrian fossil record.
First, although chock full of organic forms, the Ediacaran IS REMARKABLY RETICENT WITH ITS ANIMAL ANCESTORS—besides sponges(1719) only Kimberella has received broad acceptance
as a metazoan, possibly a molluscan metazoan..."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(cont)
"...And second, the geologic fossil record is a fairly accurate representation of biotic evolution such that both molecular clock analyses and paleoecological considerations agree that
mobile macrophagous animals are no older than about the Ediacaran itself.(14,15,21) ..."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(cont)
"...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...."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(cont)
"...Indeed, as emphasized by Erwin and Davidson,(23) early morphological disparity and the
temporal asymmetry of morphological innovations are known features of the fossil record,(24,25) AND CANNOT BE SIDESTEPPED WITH SUCH QUAINT, BUT ULTIMATELY ANTIQUATED NEO-DARWINIAN PREJUDICES..."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
You understand of course that by 'neo-darwinian prejudices' they are talking about resistance to punctuated equilibrium?
Which is a fact which I accept entirely (so therefore would not be neo-darwinian)
You seem to think "neo-darwinism"="evolutionary theory"
that is wrong, demonstrably so
ProcInc 2 years ago
You could have saved a lot of spamming in my comment box by offering an abstract of the paper...
but wait...that would go against you because the paper is offering one of several SOLUTIONS to the Cambrian Explosion's gaps.
The reason it is stating there is a problem at all is to SOLVE it (as I mentioned before) and it does
why are you ignoring this basic premise? the paper sets up an argument to knock it down and you then only replicate the problem!
you bloody liar
ProcInc 2 years ago
ProcInc - Getting all testy and hurling insults just makes it that much harder to take you seriously. You undermine your case by losing control over your emotions.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
If I have spent four paragraphs justifying your alleged "insult" (describing you as a demonstrable liar) how exactly it the justification undermined by that which it justifies?
I mean, you are clearly lying about this paper being supportive of creationism. Even if I were undermining my case at least I have a case, and shouel my emotions undermine my case allegedly. The case is still there
Either way you fail immensely at attempting to deceive me or the hypothetical '3rd party'
ProcInc 2 years ago
@ProcInc whoa dude dont get mad at me i think we can have a conversation without you accusing me of lying and im sorry i spammed your comments i was asking if it was a believable site and i didnt lie thats what they said and i know the had an explanation but they are unsure of that explanation so dont make it sound like im giving false information
prettybabs25 1 year ago
@prettybabs25
First of all I am not angry at all, least of all at you. At no point have you spammed the comments nor have I accused you of lying.
I did accuse your source of lying and it's a source you appear reluctant to share making it diffucult to properly evaluate.
Either way the suggestion that bird fossils have been found in the Cambrian is wrong regardless of where the information came from and under what motivation.
I'm simply happy to point that out
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc i was not reluctant to share it you are accusing me of dishonesty i wasnt dishonest i posted the site you looked it up the name of it is lightning fuse for the cambrian explosion i really wish i hadnt asked anything i feel attacked and all i did was ask if this site was reliable geeze
prettybabs25 1 year ago
@ProcInc your getting angry at me for nothing man my original question was weathor or not the site was believable i wasnt even trying to disprovr or prove anything
prettybabs25 1 year ago
"All of these researchers are evolutionary biologists who believe in darwinian evolution"
That's true, they have also written an article that explains the Cambrian Explosion and offers new evidence regarding it (in the field of microbiology).
Where in this article, even in the snippets you attempt to vandalise here is the Cambrian explosion regarded as an insurmountable problem? Or a problem at all since their article actually REFUTES cretards
ProcInc 2 years ago
ProcInc, your standard tactics in our discussion appear to be 1) discredit and disparage scientists who disagree with your view, and 2)complain that any information submitted is outdated.
Frankly, this is getting old and rely highlights the fact that you are dogmatic Darwinist with a real axe to grind against religion, specifically Christianity. You are an ideologue and are blind to any reasoning. Nevertheless, because it is so entertaining, I will continue our discussions.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"1. Discredit and disparage scientists who disagree with your view"
The only scientist you have presented who disagreed with "my view" was Paul Chien, who admitted himself to knowing nothing about palaeontology! In the context he was trying to argue he was not even a scientist! Give me a credible palaeontologist
2. Actually most of the alleged information you provide is out of context. The entire article you present selections of here trounce your accusations and supports me
ProcInc 2 years ago
I reapeat the sequence and order of complexity of fossils is your problem, not evolution's.
Reason being the Cambrian fauna did not appear at once.
They appear millions of years apart in sequence over the Cambrian period culminating at the Burgess shale (30 million years after the explosion)
The early Cambrian fauna are barely more complex than Edicaran fauna.
ProcInc 2 years ago
Why is that a problem for me? When have I ever said that all types of life had to appear at once? We know that man didn't appear for millions of years after the Cambrian explosion, so obviously not all lifeforms arrived on Earth at the same exact time.
My main point here is that the transitional fossils aren't there to support gradual Darwinian evolution from the Ediacaran to the Cambrian, and that there are an awful lot of new fossils in the Cambrian that weren't there before.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"Why is that a problem for me?"
Because you are exaggering the issue. None of the Cambrian finds are out of sequence fossils, they conform to evolution's predictions and cover a vast time scale.
The transitional fossils ARE there and I have listed several of them several times.
There are animals in every strata not found in previous strata (since life is changing) but we can still determine relationships
ProcInc 2 years ago
//4. Are any of the fossils out of place? //
According to an article, "Cambrian Flash", written by Reasons To Believe:
"The most widely accepted idea among naturalistic biologists has been that chordates arose from echinoderms (sea stars, sand dollars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, etc.) and that chordates in turn gave rise to vertebrates. Echinoderms are also believed to have spawned hemichordates as an evolutionary side branch....
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(cont)
This scenario predicts that echinoderms, hemichordates, chordates, and vertebrates will appear sequentially in the fossil record—and that the sequence will cover a long time span, given the extensive anatomical and physiological differences among these phyla. Naturalism would not anticipate hemichordates, chordates, or vertebrates appearing together in the early Cambrian fauna.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
(cont)
But in recent years, researchers have found hemichordates and chordates together in the Cambrian event. These discoveries, in and of themselves, create an insurmountable problem for the naturalistic model.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
4. Why in the name of all that is decent do you take these sites and people with NO credibility at all as sources? I mean honestly..."reasons to believe"??
Okay I'll first show the most glaring problem. It doesn't cite any of its claims yet has a reference list...the most recent article being 10 years old and most recent source being an interview with Chien (at least now I know where you got that "leading" crap from)
(cont)
ProcInc 2 years ago
ProcInc, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy by disregarding information from sources you consider to be inferior or non-credible. You need to deal with the merit of the arguments themselves.
BTW, I never even copied and pasted the clinching paragraph:
"Most recently, however, paleontologists have discovered craniate chordates (animals with a stiff rod-like structure along their back and a hardened or mineralized brain case) and vertebrates in early Cambrian layers.7"
!!!!
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"disregarding information form sources you consider to be inferior"
I also pointed out why by showing where and why they are wrong.
I have read the 'nature'. What particular part of it is problematic?
I am aware of Haikouella, it features in my video and I describe it as a craniate.
None of this fudges the order as demonsrated in 00:27 of the video (which is a slide from the Dover Trial as part of the presentation that debunked the creationist arguments on the Cambrian fauna)
ProcInc 2 years ago
"committing the ad hominem fallacy"
Howso? The only way you can possibly justify this claim is to assert that all information is equal evidence regardless of their source. Again, poor reasoning.
Besides, I read the "Reasons to believe" article so you don't need to copy its misinformation
If the Cambrian explosion is such strong evidence against evolution, why didn't the defense even *attempt* to address Kevin Padian's presentation at the Dover trial?
ProcInc 2 years ago
//all information is equal evidence regardless of their source. Again, poor reasoning.//
Actually it is poor reasoning to not think that. Your thought process seems to be:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false
This is illogical and incorrect.
I haven't read much about the Dover trial so I can't comment on that.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"Person 1 makes claim X"
So I check the credibility of 1 and the accuracy of X each on their own merit
If there is something objectionable about 1 (as you implicitly admit) then I still answer X
I show X to be false and back it up by exposing 1.
But you merely say I only exposed one and ignore my evauation of X. That is dishonesty.
I suggest you DO read up on the Dover trial, and look at Padian's testimony and how it trounces the dishonest "crID proponentist" cult
ProcInc 2 years ago
4. (cont)
The article also does not tell the whole truth in regards to the fossil order. They did not appear at the same time
The earliest echniderms found (which were primitive and not resembling modern echinoderms) were found in the LOWER Cambrian (530mya)
The earliest chordate (Pikaia) is found in the MIDDLE Cambrian (505mya...~20my after echniderms first appear!)
Hemichordates are first found in between in the mid-to-lower Cambrian sites
QED
ProcInc 2 years ago
(cont from QED)
I should add to this again (to emphasise on my 8th question) that MY VIDEO ALREADY SHOWED THIS! What your obscure fundamentalist article claims was already debunked by my video (at 00:27, look at the top branches) before you even claimed it
I suggest you actually watch my videos before attempting to argue one next time
Also you didn't answer question 5. Where are the listed groups etc? (if you heard there are fish, name the species)
Hell, where are the STARfish??
ProcInc 2 years ago
//Where are the listed groups etc? (if you heard there are fish, name the species)//
Haikouichthys, Myllokunmingia, and possibly Yunnanozoon are things I've ready about.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"Haikouicthys, myllokunmingia and possibly yunnanozoon"
all of which my video mentions by name. Do they have fins or bony spines as fish should have? Or are they simple and basal forms with more complex forms coming later progressively?
ProcInc 2 years ago
I recommend reading the article "An early Cambrian craniate-like chordate" in the Journal Nature.
Copied is part of its introduction:
"These findings indicate that Haikouella probably represents a very early craniate-like chordate that lived near the beginning of the Cambrian period during the main burst of the Cambrian explosion. These findings will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate..."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
//2. How do you account for life forms existing before the Cambrian at all?//
Well I personally think that God created life, before and during the Cambrian.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
2. What god would this be? There are millions. If you want to invoke the Judeo-Christian god then remember that fossils were only formed during the flood and therefore don't even indicate a history of the Earth's population at different times.
Either way your opinion is bunk. And proper science has DEbunked it
ProcInc 2 years ago
ProcInc, I really have desire to get into a religious debate with you.
The main point I am making about your video is that the Cambrian explosion IS a big deal and has caused a fair amount of controversy in the scientific community.
You seem to be instead saying "nothing to see here, move along..." and trying to sweep it under the rug.
If you want to maintain a belief in neo-darwinism despite the evidence of the Cambrian exp that is your choice, but you shouldn't minimize the problem.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"the Cambrian explosion IS a big deal"
yet despite the hot air of creationists it is not any indication against evolutionary theory. The controversy is not that of evolution-no evolution. That topic is not controversial.
I am not sweeping anything under the rug I am showing that creationists are lying and the investigation of phenomena in an attempt to explain it is what science does!
Evolution, by your own admission (q7.)explains the Cambrian explosion better as it has answers
ProcInc 2 years ago
"but you shouldn't minimise the problem"
I am Addressing the "problem" at face value.
You and your creationist hacks you take as gospel are misrepresenting the issue!
What am I ignoring? that there are things in the Cambrian that aren't in the Edicaran?
Its an evolutionary trend for the fossil record to change! and with 5 million years missing from the record of course the differences would be considerable!
creationism has the real problem explaining it as I demonstrated (Q5,7)
ProcInc 2 years ago
ProcInc,
Is your theory that the 5 million year gap between the end of the Ediacaran and the beginning of the Cambrian filled with innumerable transitional fossils that show Ediacarans transforming into Cambrians?
Is that the theory? Are you saying that if we could JUST find those fossils in the 5 million year gap (some say its less than 5 million, btw) evolution would be proven to be the true and the matter would be resolved beyond all doubt!
wgbutler777 2 years ago
The Ediacaran fossil record already has several transitional forms of basal versions (roughly 150 documented genera) of the more diverse forms of the Cambrian. In five million years, yes there will definitely be change documented as there is in every.
Who says it's less than 5 mil and how long do they say?
Evolution already has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It wuld take a profound discovery to disprove it
A cambrian crab or turtle would do, cambrian trout? dolphin? starfish?
ProcInc 2 years ago
I heard a podcast on Reasons to Believe discussing the situation. If you want to listen to it the name of the Podcast is "oldest animals found in lakes, not oceans" from Science News Flash.
Anyway, the biologist, Dr. Fuz Rana, explains that the Chengjiang site is older than the Burgess shale and covers about 2-3 million years of fossils, and that it has most or all of the Burgess Shale Fossils. So these lifeforms basically develop within 2-3 million years.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"Podcast on reasons to believe"
anything credible? the oldest animals are actually found in the oceans by the way
Yes, the Chenjiang site is older than the burgess shale (20 million years older), its also 20 million years younger than the ediacaran-cambrian barrier and lacks the burgess shale's more complex Cambrian animals with only the simpler versions of the same group present (for instance anomalacaris is found but the more complex opabinia is not)
ProcInc 2 years ago
Don't put words in my mouth. All I know at this point is what the fossil record tells me.
Apparently most of the major life forms did appear out of thin air in the Cambrian. They aren't in the Ediacaran fossil record, then they are all over the place in the Cambrian fossil record.
Draw what conclusions you will. Its no skin off my nose. But to me it seems like a real dilemna for the neo-Darwinisist model of biological development.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"Its what the fossil record tells me"
That's interesting because it isn't what the fossil record says.
"Most of the major life forms"
Give me one example with no precambrian (or early cambrian in some cases) predecessors.
The Cambrian explosion is merely a glorified gap in the fossil record, nothing in the cambrian is a modern class, family, genus or species.
To you it seems like a dilemma but that is merely because you are mistaken, palaeontologists disagree with you unanimously
ProcInc 2 years ago
"They aren't in the Ediacaran fossil record"
Instead the Edicaran fossil record (which is up to 100my older than the Cambrian and ends 5 million years before it) has basal and simpler versions of the group in the Cambrian (which I list)
The Ediacaran biota was more diverse than you think. Over 150 genera have been decribed all with links to the specialised phyla of the Cambrian.
ProcInc 2 years ago
I just need to ask a few questions now to try and understand your twisted interpretation of the Cambrian explosion
1. Do you think 5million years is a short amount of time?
2. How do you account for life forms existing before the Cambrian at all?
3. How do you account for the multiple articles and discoveries supporting evolutionary theory with the Cambrian Period/explosion with no palaeontologist supprting even your fundamental claims?
ProcInc 2 years ago
4. Are any of the fossils out of place?
5. Why no fish, aquatic insects, whales, crabs etc BUT simpler relatives and intermediates instead? So they are our ancestors?
6. Exactly which "Darwinists" have said the Cambrian Explosion is an unanswerable, tizzying problem?
7. Why, out of 50 (alleged) Cambrian phyla are only 9-11 modern (out of the modern 38) and the other 41 going extinct?
8. Why are you making the same claims that my video addresses and debunks?
ProcInc 2 years ago
//5. Why no fish, aquatic insects, whales, crabs etc BUT simpler relatives and intermediates instead? So they are our ancestors?//
I'm pretty sure they have found vertebrate fish at one or both of Cambrian sites.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
5. You would be wring unless you are stretchign the definition of the term "fish" (which is colloquial anyway).
No sarcopterygii or actinopterygii are found, my video adresses this by showing that the earliest true fish are Ordovician and even they have no true fins.
ProcInc 2 years ago
//6. Exactly which "Darwinists" have said the Cambrian Explosion is an unanswerable, tizzying problem?//
Well, how about Darwin himself?
"To the question of why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to theseperiods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."
wgbutler777 2 years ago
6. My video addresses this too. Look up what Charles Darwin said AFTER this and then take into account that this was 150 yeears ago! (since you think 5 million is brief I'm interested to see your interpretation of 150).
Would you really call Darwin a darwinist anyway? What is a "Darwinist"? Your running defintion so far appears to be 'credible scientist'.
ProcInc 2 years ago
ProcInc, I have to do some stuff but I will try to write more later. What do you think about this comment:
We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.
Stephen Jay Gould
He seems to think there is a controversy to the Cambrian Explosion, not the "nothing to see here, move along" attitude that you have...
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"Stephen Jay Gould"
and he wrote this when??
let me guess...1989?
wow, what an up to date source. I'm sure nothing has made any steps to unravelling the mystery even slightly since then!
Oh wait...plenty!
"He seems to think"
he *seems* (present tense) to think....from the grave?
Spare me your incredulity.
When have I implied "nothing to see here, move along"? you are ignoring the evidence here, not me. Case in point your inability to answer my questions
ProcInc 2 years ago
//7. Why, out of 50 (alleged) Cambrian phyla are only 9-11 modern (out of the modern 38) and the other 41 going extinct?//
I don't know.
//8. Why are you making the same claims that my video addresses and debunks? //
With all due respect, I really don't think your video debunked anything. It's just the standard "have a guy with a British or Australian accent tell everyone they are stupid if they don't believe in evolution" routine.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
7. Not only do you not know but your entire set of organisations you follow in lew of actual science ignores that this is the case instead trying to tout that there was nothing but sponges and Dickinsonia and then suddenly every Cambrian animal at once which also look just like modern animals. But it isn't like that and the sooner you accept that the better.
8. Considering what you have tried to argue against my video, the most generously I can put it is pot-kettle
ProcInc 2 years ago
ProcInc,
Thanks for all of your comments about the Cambrian explosion. I can tell that this is an area that you are very passionate about!
I'm not claiming to be a biology expert but just for fun I'll try to answer your questions!
wgbutler777 2 years ago
//1. Do you think 5million years is a short amount of time?//
In terms of Earth's natural history 5my is a very short amount of time. The Earth is what, 4.5 billion years old? So yes, it is a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things.
Even in terms of evolutionary history 5 million years would be short. Consider that for around 3 billion years Earth history only had only single celled organisms.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
1. So you are saying that something that is *relatively* short is automatically made absolutely brief? Poooooor reasoning
3. Which is more likely? a worldwide conspiracy of scientists form different cultures and faiths attempting to make a religiously neutral theory seem true. Or a small religious organisation attempting the same thing for a discredited theory?
ProcInc 2 years ago
//3. How do you account for the multiple articles and discoveries supporting evolutionary theory...//
They are written by Darwinists who want that point of view to be correct. Everything supports evolution, no matter what!
If there had been an infinite number of fossils showing a gradual development of life, that would have supported evolution. If instead we have what we have now, well then THAT supports evolution!
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"If there have been an infinite number of fossils"
An infinite number is impossible (duh) what we do have is an insurmountable number. We are lucky to have fossils at all but to have so many definitive transitional fossils in a predicted pattern in concrete evidence that can not be ignored.
ProcInc 2 years ago
3. More on three..
If you agree that palaeontologists are darwinists then what reason can you offer for this?
That all people who study fossils demonstrate in detail its evidentiary power for evolution
Whereas your silly camp appoints a hack ecologist to pretend to be a palaeotologist where he doesn't even write an article to be submitted?
Surely you have to agree that if all publications are "Darwinist" and all serious researchers are "Darwinists" there's a good reason?
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Both ways is exactly how it happened."
You are really going out of your way here trying to minimize the problem and sweep it under the rug. If the organisms were happily evolving all along why the need for all the theories(HOX, Oxygen, etc) to explain their sudden advent in the Cambrian?
Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco and has personally studied the fossils at Chengjiang site. In his opinion Darwin's tree of life has been inverted.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"You are really going out of your way here trying to minimize the problem and sweep it under the rug."
This is an explanation of the problem which always tends to minimise it. That is how science works rather than complicate it unecessarily to justify throwing up your arms in surrender.
"If the organisms were happily evolving all along why the need for all the theories"
Because we can't just leave out the facts of oxygen levels etc. We know they happened. Its how the model works
ProcInc 2 years ago
"If the organisms were happily evolving all along why the need for all the theories(HOX, Oxygen, etc) to explain their sudden advent in the Cambrian?"
Inversely you are saying that we should leave out the knowledge of HOX genes and oxygen levels increasing, why?
Not only do they explain the (relatively) rapid evolution of the fauna but its also the only model that incorperates the facts.
Your model has no explanation and leaves out the facts. That is not science.
ProcInc 2 years ago
The HOX theory is just a grasping of straws. HOX genes can only invoke DNA that is already there. The HOX gene theory does nothing to explain how the genetic codes for all the multitudes of new phyla got there to begin with.
The oxygen theory is just abiogenesis-remix. Mix some oxygen and carbon together and presto! New life forms magically appear! It's atheism of the gaps with no evidence to back it up.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"Chairman of the biology department"
he joined the faculty in 1973 and has contributed little to nothing since publishing only 6 peer reviewed papers since, none on palaeontology.
His opinions on palaeontology are of no worth. He is a self-admitted layman on the subject and his opinions contradict the entirety of credeble and publishing palaeontologists.
Why would you think his opinion would be effective?
ProcInc 2 years ago
I don't know, he seems reasonable to me. Rather than attempt to discredit him because he disagrees with you, why not just admit be honest and admit the problem.
Edicarian era = spongelike organisms and simple fauna. That's it!
Cambrian era - BAM! 50+ phyla and complex organisms appearing out of thin air with no previous fossil development.
It's a big problem, and it has the Darwinists in a tizzy.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"He seems reasonable to me"
he is a fellow of an intelligent design propaganda institute! how much less reasonable can you get?
"discredit him because he disagrees with you"
He disagrees with the palaeontological record and admits it!
Your interpretation of the Ediacaran-Cambran era is incorrect.
The Cambrian explosion didn't hold up in court, what makes you think you can use it to your advantage?
I've already had a fundie use the 50 phyla line and it didn't end well for him
ProcInc 2 years ago
Really, there's no need to get all huffy about it. The cambrian explosion is what it is. I'm sorry it makes you defensive, but there's no need to be afraid of the truth.
There are so many theories about the Cambrian explosion (from Darwinists as well as Intelligent Design proponents) that everything is pretty much speculation at this point.
All we know for sure is that there was an explosion of new life 540 mya, according to the fossile record.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"spongelike organisms and simple fauna. That's it!"
At least you admit that (though it is incorrect). Jonathon Wells (another ID hack) lied that before the Cambrian there was only bacteria.
However if you even look up wikipedia's Cambrian explosion entry you can see how spread out the explosion was.
You are arguing these creature appeared out of thin air? That they had no progeny? So the Edicaran biota just diappeared a few million years before these animals appeared?
that's silly
ProcInc 2 years ago
I see a lot of dancing around the basic issue that the fossil record shows most or all of the major animal groups springing into existence within a very short amount of time, which is completely different than what we would have expected from neo-Darwinian evolution.
The Cambrian explosion is yet another nail in the coffin of atheism. The Big Bang, the fine tuning of the Universe, and the Cambrian explosion demonstrate that it takes much more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God!
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"the fossil record shows most or all of the major animal groups springing into existence within a very short amount of time"
Dancing the around the issue? It is actually directly addressing it by demonstrating that all cambrian phyla (9-11 are modern representatives) were primitive and basal forms of their modern counterparts and appeared over a period of 5 million years (very short amount of time?)
It is now an excellent demonstration of evolution thanks to a stronger record
ProcInc 2 years ago
The Cambrian explosion is a major problem for Darwinian evolution. So much so that multiple theories are floating around from the Darwinists in an attempt to explain it away.
Let's see, there's the evolution of the eye theory spurring multiple body plan developments, HOX genes, and the oxygen theory just off the top of my head.
Books have been written about this. As much as you might like to, you cannot sweep the controversy under the rug with a little youtube video....
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"The Cambrian explosion is a major problem for Darwinian evolution."
Not at all, even disregarding my last answer (which you have) the prescence of diverse life 540mya (and now with a strong older record to support it) never has been a problem for darwinian evolution as even Darwin addressed simlilar issues in his day.
The theories you list are all demonstrably factual to different extents. Explaining something is not an attempt to explain it 'away'
ProcInc 2 years ago
Listen to what I am saying. All of these theories cannot be correct. Either the organisms were previously evolving up to that point (in which case there is little no fossil evidence to back that idea up) or they all burst onto the scene at once because of HOX genes and oxygen levels. You can't have it both ways.
For those of you who might be open minded on this issue, I recommend googling Paul Chien, a leading scientist who has been to the Chengjiang site and researched this extensively.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
"All of these theories cannot be correct."
Why not? We know that evolution is always driven by a variety of factors, why should the Cambrian be the one exception?
"You can't have it both ways."
Both ways is exactly how it happened. The organisms were evolving before and during the cambrian explosion and over a 5-10 million year period it was relatively more punctuated (You can't can't say there is no fossil evidence when my video shows photographs of the fossils themselves)
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Paul Chien, a leading scientist who has been to the Chengjiang site and researched this extensively. "
Paul Chien, really?
Chien is not a leading scientist, his only scientific involvement is as a fellow of the Discovery institute.
Researched the Chengjiang site extensively, are you kidding? By his own admission Chien has no credentials nor expertise in palaeontology. He would (and did) have no idea what he is doing
ProcInc 2 years ago