its funny because i can so easily find evidence for evolution yet when i search for evidence against evolution, there simply is not ONE piece, not ONE article, not ONE obsevation, not ONE ERV or fossil out of place. macro evolution is speciation, its been observed, some will admit this but then they simply say well, you havnt observed new phyla or new kingdoms evolve, its pathetic how unwilling to change they are
have you tried reading about evolution in corals? theirs some truely interesting papers available online talking about the phynotypical plasticity of faviid corals and speciation. its great stuff..
I love when Americans/Canadians mix up the accents of Australians/New Zealanders with the Scottish/Welsh/Irish/English or even better the French/Belgian...
Even funnier when people get angry that their accent has been wrongly associated with a neighbouring country who sound, well, pretty much, exactly the same but will happily make the same mistake with peoples further away from them.
Yeah if you want to make a New Zealander angry, call them an Australian.
If you want to infuriate a Canadian to the point of violence mistake them for an American.
No one wants that association especially these days..... You often see Americans hitchhiking around New Zealand with Canadian flags on their backpacks to distance themselves from their nationality.
NZ doesn't even let US warships into their harbours because we're anti-nuclear and they won't confirm or deny they have nukes.
You will find that Crepe never actually cites anything specific in his arguments against evolutionary theory. His statements run along the lines of "Macro evolution can't/didn't happen because I say so".
You will never actually find any positive evidence of his claims, rather only ones that make vague statements that speak to his lack of knowledge about evolution.
LOL, so according to you, science works according to proving what isn't possible instead of providing evidence to how it is possible. I have shown you to your face time and time again how you have nothing mroe than a straw man understanding of evolutionary theory, what are you even rambling on about?
This is the kind of double speak you will get from Crepe.
I pointed out that you have no positive claims against evolution, nothing to show that it is wrong in any regard. Even with your child like obsession with "macro" evolution you could provide positive claims showing it false.
Let's forget the fact you don't even know how science generally runs, please provide me with anything you take to be eidence for this "macro-evolution" and I'll show you what I mean.
Funny I said that you would never present a positive claim for why 'macro evolution' is not possible and you proved me right by asking me to provide evidence FOR macro evolution :P
LOL, now you are just arguing semantics, are you that much at a loss? "Evidence for macroevolution" means just that, whether or not we are to assume it is possible/plausible. Stop running circles funny man.
Microevolution IS macroevolution. Microevolution is small changes. If you get many many many small changes it becomes a big change or macroevolution. Microevolution is just microevolution over millions of years. there is no barrier between them.
"science works according to proving what isn't possible instead of providing evidence to how it is possible."
Actually, that's quite accurate. Science can actually only disprove and never prove.
Evolution has been confirmed based on predictions and substantial evidence particularly in developmental biology and genetics including molecular biology but it stands most prominently as a science because it has not been falsified
When macro-evolution is "observed"? A "descriptive inevitability"? Are you joking? Apparently, a "reproductive strain that is transcendable" is evidence for this "macro" evolution? The only time scientists claimed to have observed macro-evolution was when they decided to toy with hox genes, and yet the results were disastrous in terms of what was produced. This video is just a puff of hot air.
Actually we see examples of macro evolution often. I can point you to a study showing lizards developing morphological changes in skull size, weight, jaw length as well as evolving new stomach valves because of the change in diet. This was observed over 36 years when lizards were put on an island to observe how they might go extinct. They didn't, they evolved and survived.
Sir, macro-evolution would have to include evolutionary processess showing progression from one species to an entirely new one, this is required if you want to assert universal common descent is reality. Variations in skull size, weight, and jaw length does nothing to prove UCD. Macro-evolution would entail examples such as pakicetus evolving into modern day cetaceans, but I am sure you can see how ridiculous that notion is.
Of course evolution includes a speciation. We've seen this happen.
Yes the pakicetus evolving into the cetaceans we see today is an example of evolution. What you seem to gloss over is the estimated 53 million years between the pakicetus and the whales we see today.
With that much time it's not very silly at all but highly likely. The fact that we find no modern whale skeletons dating back to 53 million years means they came from somewhere and evolution explains how.
"Of course evolution includes a speciation. We've seen this happen. "
oops, My baloney detector is going off, I sense some equivocation happening here. Yes speciation exists, but what is speciation? Reproductive isolation? Does this account for the "man to molecule" notion? What is evolution? Yes evolution happens, but to what extent? Look, these finches have different beak types. Of course, that must mean all life came from molecules.
You seem to be deliberately being dishonest here. Evolution is the study of how life changes over time. It deals with living organisms that reproduce. Evolution makes no claim on how life originally began just as atomic theory does not deal with where atoms came from. I hope we are clear on this.
You are correct that there are several definitions of species depending on what field of study is being talked about.
A common definition is a group of animals that are capable of breeding and producing fertile offspring.
An example is the horse and the donkey. Breeding is possible but produces generally infertile children, mules and hinnys. Though they share many of the same morphological traits their inability to breed successfully is one reason they are classified as different species.
You are correct that we must have a clear understanding of evolution and terms.
Species for example is used by several natural sciences and can refer to different defnitions.
One easy one is "a subset of a genus, a population capable of reproducing fertile offspring".
We can see horses and donkeys, while similar in morphology, cannot produce fertile offspring. Mules are infertile and hinnys are infertile the majority of the time.
The inability to reproduce is one indicator of species.
In cases of ring species, we see animals that can interbreed with species close to them in the geologic chain, but the species on the far extremes cannot breed with each other. This shows how evolution works with species that separate geologically where the environment has led to evolution that makes breeding impossible for species at the far ends of each other.
I know what ring species are, sir. What you fail to understand is how equivocating documented instances of speciation as evidence for universal common descent is not valid. UCD and macro-evolution go hand in hand, reproductive isolation does nothing to support these concepts.
lol, why *facepalm*? You're giving evidence for "macro" evolution which isn't evidence for it at all. Speciation occurs by definition (according to the biological species concept) when reproduction isolation occurs, but this does nothing to evidence macro-evolution whatsoever.
I just know where you are going with this argument.
See the thing here is that you would only define evidence as something you see happen in front of you. The fact that what you want to see would take potentially thousands if not millions of years means in your mind that we cannot say it occurred.
When I point out evidence of the fossil record, no modern fossils being, the clear development of the whale for example, you will shrug it away as coincidence or fantasy.
By your reasoning we cannot say anything happened outside of observation, which is patently false. This becomes an argument from ignorance. You can't be bothered to learn about taxonomy and paleontology so you say others are making things up for some unknown reason.
Forensic teams can rebuild faces from bone fragments, zooologists can determine species from picked over bone remains, this same science is used in paleontology yet here it's wrong for some reason.
Macroevolution is simply speciation so this need not bethe case.
Indeed Universal Common descent has been proven with molecular biology and palaeontology hundreds of times in different tests even if macroevolution hadn't been.
If you give a valid definition of macroevolution you will find it is as I say a descriptive inevitability
Reproductive isolation alone does not account for bio-diversity. What are you saying? Macro-evolution is by definition change above the level of a species and cannot be restricted to reproductive isolation. This is only obvious, as breeding barriers can only prove to be the initial step but will not explain why or how a certain species will change overtime in order to yield large-scale changes in over all morphology, anatomy, or structure.
You seem to have some issue with evolution over time. There is nothing stopping large scale morphology, anatomy and structure changes given mutation + natural selection + time.
There is no barrier here, I don't know why you think there is. If you absolutely need to see it happen for yourself, wait around for a few millions years.
I am disappointed that you think I do not know the difference between evolution and abiogensis. You seem to have it the wrong way. Where abiogensis supposedly leaves off, evolution supposedly picks up. Hence, evolution began at the molecular level, with molecules that supposedly fulfilled the necessary requirements to sustain life. Thus, stating that evolutionary theory entails the rather ridiculous prospect of molecules to man is far from dishonesty.
Correction: Evolution 'occurs' at the molecular level but is only referred to as evolution in the biological sense if it is occuring within a life-form (RNA-DNA homeostatic replicator)
Indeed a form of Natural selection is involved in the steps to the first living things, but the origin of life is the origin of evolution.
'Molecules to man' is a demonstration of your willingness to mislead through oversimplification
Molecules to man is exactly what evolutionary theory entails; you really have nothing to comment concerning that. Yet somehow I show my willingness to mislead? Stating the obvious is somehow misleading? Truthfully, it is you who needs to sugar coat the issue with clever sophistication in order for the notion to sit comfortably within the recesses of your mind. It has nothing to do with me doing any wrong.
You are being dishonest by the molecule to man statement. Evolution deals with the evolution of life, abiogenesis deals with the first building blocks of life occurring naturally.
Suggesting that we need to fully understand and demonstrate the first protein all the way to modern man before we can be sure of evolution is silly.
Protein was just an example of the kind of structure early life would have formed.
Again, you ignored the overall comment. It is dishonest to suggest that if we cannot account for every step between abiogenesis, the first life form, up to modern man then evolution is not true.
I'm sorry but science does not require that kind of complete proof before it can investigate and come to an understanding of nature.
"Protein was just an example of the kind of structure early life would have formed"
Ok, let me get this straight. I am discussing evolution, yet you want to say I am arguing proteins becoming men and then when I respond telling you that isn't what I meant you reiterate and say how it is "proteins" that are products of what would be early life which would have been what evolved into men...O_O I think you are confused.
You said "Molecules to man is exactly what evolutionary theory entails"
Right? Maybe look down at your comment?
I've said several times now, evolution deals with changes in living organisms over time. It does not deal with how life came to exist on earth. Abiogenesis deals with how life may have come about, evolution deals with changes once that life came to be and began reproducing.
Ok? Clear enough that you can stop avoiding questions?
"Again, you ignored the overall comment. It is dishonest to suggest that if we cannot account for every step between abiogenesis, the first life form, up to modern man then evolution is not true."
You are right, that is dishonest, but it isn't even what I was arguing in the first place. I am arguing macro-evolution, not abiogensis. Again, you seem to show how you are confused.
Again, you brought up the "molecule to man" argument. So don't put that on us.
As far as macro evolution goes, what is to stop it from happening? Evolution is muation + natural selection + time.
Why would evolution above the species level (macro evolution) not be possible? Why do we have the evidence in form of fossils, taxonomy, phylegenic trees, genetic markers showing common ancestory, etc?
It is not hard to understand that evolution must have began on the microscopic level, this is what I am refering to. Why are you insisting on calling me dishonest?
Because evolution does not deal with molecules forming the first life, abiogenesis does. Get that straight and stop saying evolution deals with "molecules to man", it doesn't.
To confuse this suggests that evolution is incomplete because we lack understanding of how life began initially. This is not true. Evolution deals with life that is reproducing, has mutations and is under natural selection and is given time.
Please tell me what the "first" life form would have been. As long as you have a life form, you are to have evolution; whether it be visible or invisible to human eye.
I have no idea. To a large degree it depends on how you define life. Is reproduction life? We see viruses reproduce but we do not consider that life. Would it be early reproducing molecules enclosed in the very first membrane, a protocell if you would? How complex would this have to be before we would call it life?
Honestly I don't know. I think that is part of the challenge of abiogenesis and molecular biology, where do we draw the line to determine where life starts.
Regardless, this is not an issue with evolution. As soon as life began to reproduce, mutate and was subjected to natural selection, evolution was occurring and has been since.
(1) Your contempt for creationism proves nothing. I never made any reference to creationism, thus referencing it is invalid and only shows bias on your part. It is clear you base your assertions of macroevolution on faulty grounds, as it is the supposed evolutionary process instituted to explain bio-diversity properly and yet you restrict it to reproductive isolation.
(2) Macro-evolution is by definition "change at/above the level of a species", a purposely ambiguous statement so the likes of you can come around and simply equivocate claiming how it is simply "speciation" and yet you want to tell me it matters not that macro-evolution is not proven as we have proven UCD. This begs the notion of UCD being plausible without macroevolution and that is simply out of the question.
(3) You cannot seem to make up your mind as you equate macroevolution with speciation (reproductive isolation) in an attempt to prove it and then you consequently tell me it matters not if it remains unproven for whatever reasons. Contradictions indicate reasoning that is inherently flawed.
Like I say it is also dishonest to make this statement because it it oversimplification.
It becomes apparent that you are not saying I am wrong, simply dishonest.I find it highly hypocritical that evolutionists want to divide evolutionary theory into quanta and interpret them individually with no regards for coherence or consequences. They want to present a narrative claiming it to be uniform and then chop this narrative into pieces and dictate how it should be viewed or interpreted.
Evolution requires coherence and consequences. It would be easy to disprove evolution, find a lizard with nipples, find a modern complex animal fossil from millions of years ago, find a lack of genetic markers in animals that at grouped together through taxonomy, etc.
Next evolution predicts what we will find.
I'm sorry we haven't found anything to contradict evolution yet, but saying it's not coherent is ridiculous like all of your claims.
Excuse me, but if you believe evolution to provide a coherent story then you wouldn't be accusing me of being dishonest when I refer to the first life forms (which were microscopic entities) becoming men. You are the one who makes ridiculus claims, flashing the "mutation+natural selection+time" card and pretending all is justified without even substantiating it with any evidence. This is nothing more than a blind guess of what nature might have intended.
I'm sorry we haven't found anything to contradict evolution yet,
Well of course, this is so blatantly obvious as any evidence seems to arbitrarily becomes evidence for evolution regardless if it is even relevant. Evolutionists have proven it doesnt even matter if it contradicts evolution, it will automatically become evidence FOR evolution. So please dont give me that.
You're insulting my level of education is only spawned from you getting angry evidently, as I do have an education, I am a student of the sciences. That is irrelevant. First let me make it clear we have apparently moved on to another topic. Second, I need mention how you apparently attribute fossils as the only evidence for evolution? Ironically, trends in the fossil record can prove to be the biggest slap in the face to the concepts of UCD and macroevolution.
(1) I neednt mention more than the Cambrian era. The fact that this stubborn notion of species shifting morphology, structure, and anatomy over time persists even in light of this evidence simply makes it a laughing matter. We observe all living organisms in this brief period of 55 million years appearing in fairy modern forms.
(2)We assert that all the 7 major phyla that abruptly appeared in this period somehow came into existence by evolutionary processes despite the fact that any sort of simpler forms or transitional forms are absent. Not only that, but the fossils would indicate any forms of graduation/saltation were either suspended or simply non-existent.
I AM NOT QUOTE MINING ANYONE. Stop it with these stupid accusations, I haven't gone to any creationists sites, what are you talking about? It is a generally known fact of the cambrian era that these phyla were somehow rapidly produced, by "we" I meant the scientific community, get a clue.
However I suggest in the future not to use the royal 'we' unless you can demonstrate a consensus in the scientific community via citation. As you are obviously not a biologist and have very little clue about evolution, it just makes you look silly.
"However I suggest in the future not to use the royal 'we' unless you can demonstrate a consensus in the scientific community via citation."
It only makes you look silly, as you ask for well-known evidence concerning fossils from the Cambrian era. Just because I mention "fairly modern forms" and it doesn't make sense to you, ask for an explanation before lashing out with accusations to quote mining.
Most of your arguments are addressed in the very video series you are commenting on and even in other videos I already have made.
There is no controversy behind the accuracy of the fact that the biodiversity and complexity on our planet is the result of evolution from a common ancestor.
If anything it is you who is embarassing himself. You err heavily in equating macro-evolution simply with speciation and asserting this is all that is required for bio-diversity when it is not. Your replies to my comments are rife with contradictions and yet somehow it is I who embarassed myself. Go figure.
LOL. I would have figured an evolutionist like yourself would have played the religion card. All you are doing is simply showing how weak a case evolution has, as you turn to reasoning that is dishonest and outright fallacious. Any sort of attempt to scrutnize evolutionary theory in a way that undermines it is somehow arbitrarily linked with religious motivation even if you have no clue how or why. LOL, nice try.
"I would have figured an evolutionist like yourself would have played the religion card."
Religious beliefs are the only objection to evolution there is. No legitimate scientific casde against evolution has ever stood peer review.
Evolution on the other hand is peer reviewed and scrutinised ona daily basis and despite what you want to believe provides the most accurate model to explain new discoveries.
"Religious beliefs are the only objection to evolution there is. No legitimate scientific casde against evolution has ever stood peer review."
The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution vehemently, and you wonder why this is the case? Majority of the times these cases were either outright refused or not fairly evaluated.
(contd) Don't give me this bias garbage, it is irrelevant. Evolutionists have made it clear that subjectivity is not an issue of importance. You are so desperate to defend evolution that you need to create this illusion that any objection towards it is simply religiously motivated because it is somehow this supreme, impervious theory.
So basically by "fairly modern" you thought I meant in terms of present day life? LOL. I meant "fairly modern" in terms of life during the Cambrian in light of pre-cambrian evidence. Pre-cambrian fossils are noted to be simplistic, with practically no complexity whatsoever. Cambrian fossils trends show not only a break away from simplicity; but a complete permeation of complex life forms. Quote mining? Do you not know your own evidence?
It's not that I am a typical creationist, it is that you are a typical evolutionist in accusing others of being creationists with no evidence. You want evidence in terms of fossils, they are there; it just requires a little research.
What I find ridiculous is how you seem to not accept the fact that the pre-cambrian to cambrian transition entails incredibly quick, large scale changes from simplicity to straight away complexity. You ask for direct evidence and yet you deny the evidence for it at the same time. Ironic isnt it.
You do not dispute that we find simpler organisms further back and more complex closer to our own time.
This isnt even relevant to the discussion of Cambrian evidence, you only show once again how you cannot hold the proper perspective for the proper argument.
You are the one shifting the argument constantly not I.
You say "The fact that this stubborn notion of species shifting morphology, structure, and anatomy over time persists even in light of this evidence" this in reference to the cambrian explosion.
What about the cambrian explosion throws any doubt on evolutionary theory?
I suggest you watch my other video 'the cambrian explosion Remastered'
Just to let you know I responded to Looking4Coffee and I do not need you directing me to more of your videos. I wasnt able to post here while, anyways. I know about the Cambrian era, I do not need you to bastardize it for me as you have seemingly done with macro-evolution
(1) Cambrian era is permeated with complex, multi-cellular life forms, this doesnt seem rational in terms of evolution as pre-cambrian organisms were virtually simplistic and unicellular altogether. Its not a question of evolution following through, its a matter of a massive, and abrupt leap forward. In light of evolutionary theory, this is simply irrational and uncanny.
As we leave pre-cambrian, all of a sudden, we have the Cambrian era showing us massive amounts of complex, multicellular organisms arising together, instantaneously, creating the slew of major phyla that exist today. Body plans of these organisms seem to appear out of nowhere, as there is no indication in the fossil trends to any simpler forms or transitional forms that can account for the arising of these body plans through any form of an evolutionary gradient.
"Not really, the Cambrian explosion did not start alongside the Cambrian era."
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I simply refer to the Cambrian explosion being found within the Cambrian, never did I state explicitly it started alongside.
"there is no indication in the fossil trends to any simpler forms or transitional forms"
This is very wrong, not only does the ediacaran biota provide with transitional forms of the phyla that appear in the Cambrian (such as Cloudina and Spriggina) but most of the Cambrian Fauna itself are transitional forms (For instance the lobopods linking arthropods and worms)
the cambrian explosion is not an issue for evolution and hasn't been since 1874
This is very wrong, not only does the ediacaran biota provide with transitional forms of the phyla that appear in the Cambrian (such as Cloudina and Spriggina) but most of the Cambrian Fauna itself are transitional forms (For instance the lobopods linking arthropods and worms) the cambrian explosion is not an issue for evolution and hasn't been since 1874
Based on the extorted nonsense you just spewed, I am guessing I should be worried that it hasnt been an issue since 1874.
Contd)You only stand as a testament to how evolutionists misuse evidence and propose transitional forms that cannot be substantiated as true transitional forms. Cloudina lived in late Ediacaran and went extinct at the base of the Cambrian.Sprigginas affinity and relation to other groups within the Ediacaran biota is still unknown,as is the case with many of the Ediacaran biota that you have made reference to. And yet, you take it as factual, concrete evidence.Typical of an evolutionis
Not one scientist refers to himself as a gravitationalist or an atomist. The term "evolutionist" does not even fall in the same category, as it inherently carries a significance. Mainly because it entails the process of over-exaggeration beyond evidential support, which is exactly what you have done in your postulations concerning the Cambrian. You stand as a shining example to how Darwinian thought produces bad science, be proud.
"Sprigginas affinity and relation to other groups within the Ediacaran biota is still unknown,as is the case with many of the Ediacaran biota that you have made reference to."
Is Spriggina's existance an issue?
No?
Or indeed any Precambrian fossils?
Here's the concrete evidence.
The further back you go in the fossil record the simpler the creatures are, Ediacaran is transitional (of if you rather intermediate) between unicelluar eukaryotes and Cambrian fauna
(1)The further back you go in the fossil record the simpler the creatures are, Ediacaran is transitional (of if you rather intermediate) between unicelluar eukaryotes and Cambrian fauna
You only completely stretch and misuse what evolution takes to be a transitional form. Transitional would imply we know where the organism came from and what it is, and we know where its going and what it becomes.
(2)You oversimplify the term transitional and equate it merely to an intermediate, even if there are no definitive links or connections whatsoever. Spriggina exists and is thus somehow a transitional form by default, without any evidential support whatsoever. The amount of bias present within you interpretations is blaring, as there is clearly no evidence that can demonstrate how the Ediacaran biota played any role in evolutionary process but you take it as evolution nonetheless.
"Based on the extorted nonsense you just spewed, I am guessing I should be worried that it hasnt been an issue since 1874. "
When something hasn't been a problem for over 120 years yes you generally shouldn't be using it as an argument.
Not even the discoverer of the Burgess Shale (Walcott) saw it as a challenge to evolution not did the scientist who performed the most study on it (Comway-Morris) who is also a strong christian
"Body plans of these organisms seem to appear out of nowhere"
Actually the body plans originated about 100million years BEFORE the Cambrian period (let alone the cambrian explosion which was later on in the period)
Actually the body plans originated about 100million years BEFORE the Cambrian period (let alone the cambrian explosion which was later on in the period)
helminthopsis and vernamimalcula for instance
You show how you are imprisoned by the evolutionary train of thought; requiring you to cling stubbornly to the notion of uniformitarianism, even if it leads you to such unsubstantiated, over-exaggerated, and outright ludicrous statements.
(contd)You would reduce the evidence from Cambrian times to nothing, with no true, new innovations whatsoever but that it is all a working process on the old; the complete opposite of what is observed. This is simply evolutionary propaganda rehashed. And based on the examples you give, I cringeyou only prove my point. Helminthopsisis a genus of alga, and Vernanimalcula is far from consensually accepted to be a representative of bilateria, and for a good reason.
Gee, not that its possible there might be a different precambrian trace fossil dubbed Helminthopsis too that . A little more research and you would have found this out
"requiring you to cling stubbornly to the notion of uniformitarianism"
Uniformitarianism is the proposal that the forces acting in the present are those that affected the past. It is primiarily a geological discipline and just happens to be a fact that only a believer in the outdated schools of thought for catastrophism or (dare I say) "biblical judgement" (*cough*Noah*cough*) could deny.
Uniformitarianism is the proposal that the forces acting in the present are those that affected the past. It is primiarily a geological discipline and just happens to be a fact that only a believer in the outdated schools of thought for catastrophism or (dare I say) "biblical judgement" (*cough*Noah*cough*) could deny.
Uniformitarinism is strictly hinged on observation. It is based on what can be observed and validated, not blind inferrence based on elusive, ill-used evidence.
You're entire argument hinges on putting up blinders against legitimate science (With I should add, nothing to replace)
Legitimate science? So says the one who proposes reproductive isolation alone accounts for all bio-diversity. So says the one who proposes Ediacaran biota as transitional forms to Cambrian organisms when the affinities of these organisms are completely unknown. Whose the one who has blinders against legitimate science? Oh the sweet irony.
They just appear like that in the fossils. Think I am lying? LOL, there is a reason the trends from Cambrian times are no referred to as rapid evolution or rapid progression but rapid APPEARANCE. Duh, its obvious. Screw it, evolution did it anyways.
"there is a reason the trends from Cambrian times are no referred to as rapid evolution or rapid progression but rapid APPEARANCE."
Not what you think.
Evolution is the origin of new taxa, in the Case of the Cambrian it was the origin of 9-11 modern phyla (However the superphylae of these had already evolved well before the cambrian)
you are grossly misrepresenting the Cambrian explosion
Evolution is the origin of new taxa, in the Case of the Cambrian it was the origin of 9-11 modern phyla (However the superphylae of these had already evolved well before the cambrian) you are grossly misrepresenting the Cambrian explosion
If anything, you are the one guilty of this. You hide behind definitions and try to mitigate/reverse the results observed from the Cambrian. Its ridiculous.
"If anything, you are the one guilty of this. You hide behind definitions and try to mitigate/reverse the results observed from the Cambrian. Its ridiculous."
Simple enough question then,
what is the source from which you get your information regarding the cambrian explosion?
what is the source from which you get your information regarding the cambrian explosion?
You simply try to call my bluff by asking for sources, but I am simply rehashing what we know concerning the Cambrian as can be read from any source of scientific information. You are the guilty one of extorting what we know concerning the Cambrian, that much is crystal clear. You asking me for sources only shows how you want to play dumb in order to try and make a case for yourself. Lol
"You asking me for sources only shows how you want to play dumb in order to try and make a case for yourself."
Actually it's to simply test your credibility and honesty.
I can (and did in the video) provide multiple credible and published sources concerning the Cambrian explosion whereas you are merely relying on gaps.
Science works, creationism doesn't. Watch the video.
Obviously you've never heard of the Ediacaran biota.
Yes I have heard of Ediacaran biota. What you fail to mention oh so blatantly is that the Ediacaran biota IMMEDIATELY precedes the Cambrian and is generally far removed from pre-cambrian at large, as they appear at the very, very, very, end. This doesnt change the fact that simple, unicellular organisms dominate pre-cambrian. Gotta love your selective interpretations, and you think I am the one being silly
"This doesnt change the fact that simple, unicellular organisms dominate pre-cambrian."
So what we have are simple unicellular organisms followed by more complex and diverse organisms immediately before the Cambrian, then even more complexity over the cambrian and then halfway through the Cambrian the complexity of the Cambrian explosion...and this is somehow a challenge to evolution.
The scientific consensus wins over an anonymous Youtube user trying to make an argument mate
So what we have are simple unicellular organisms followed by more complex and diverse organisms immediately before the Cambrian, then even more complexity over the cambrian and then halfway through the Cambrian the complexity of the Cambrian explosion...and this is somehow a challenge to evolution.
Now you want to purposely over simplify the issue so you can feign some sort of ambiguity in order to comfortably present a "scenario" that is somehow "possible" for evolution
Your point? Evolution happened at a fast pace in this area. Over 50 or so million years.
Again, you refuse to point out any modern fossils found here to support your 'fairly modern' comment. You do not provide any fossil evidence contradiction evolutionary theory. You do not dispute that we find simpler organisms further back and more complex closer to our own time.
In short, you have no evidence to present to show evolutionary theory is false.
And? What is your point? Have you not read about punctuated equilibrium, showing that life can evolve at faster or slower paces, not always at a slow constant?
Why do you always show a lack of perspective. The whole point of stating they appear in modern forms ties in with the blatant lack of any simpler forms or transitional forms during this era. This is not evidence for evolution, what dont you get? It doesnt have anything to do with punctuated equilibrium.
Really? Again who are you quote mining, can you provide your source?
Your quote says 'fairly modern forms', what does that mean? How modern? You do realize we have fossilized life from BEFORE the cambrian era right? We know life existed before and after.
Name a fossil found in the cambrian era and let's compare how 'fairly modern' the animal is ok?
If your objection is that a great deal of evolution happened during this 55 million year time, my answer is.. so?
"We observe all living organisms in this brief period of 55 million years appearing in fairy modern forms."
And? What is your point? Have you not read about punctuated equilibrium, showing that life can evolve at faster or slower paces, not always at a slow constant?
Please do the world a favor and do some research before quotemining a creationalist website.
This also goes to show how evolution in general is horrifically indecisive, juggling back and forth between idleness, graduation, and saltation. It's simply ridiculous.
Yes, because the complexity of all life on the planet should be simple and obvious. Now your just being deliberately idiotic. What happens when natural selection forces are not strong.. not much. You would get a species in statis. Are you so delusional that you think the forces that act on life are always constant? Do you not think that over millions of years periods of high and low pressure exists on species? Have you not read about punctuated equilibrium vs gradiation?
Since change over time is inevitable due to the laws of population genetics then over the period of time life has been around macroevolution can does and inevitably accounts for the forms/diversity of the planet.
at 3:10 I give the proper description of macroevolution and in the next slide give an example.
In macroevolution a population eventually becaomes something new, at the same time it remains a group of what it was.
LOL
xterminatorSD 4 months ago
aydaptashion
lol
adrastea99 1 year ago
its funny because i can so easily find evidence for evolution yet when i search for evidence against evolution, there simply is not ONE piece, not ONE article, not ONE obsevation, not ONE ERV or fossil out of place. macro evolution is speciation, its been observed, some will admit this but then they simply say well, you havnt observed new phyla or new kingdoms evolve, its pathetic how unwilling to change they are
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef i know what you mean.
have you tried reading about evolution in corals? theirs some truely interesting papers available online talking about the phynotypical plasticity of faviid corals and speciation. its great stuff..
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord there's a relatively new book out call "Reef Madness". You should enjoy it
ProcInc 1 year ago
LOL! Straw frog truns into straw man!
Love your British accent BTW!
cp3814 2 years ago
Australian accent
ProcInc 2 years ago
I love when Americans/Canadians mix up the accents of Australians/New Zealanders with the Scottish/Welsh/Irish/English or even better the French/Belgian...
Even funnier when people get angry that their accent has been wrongly associated with a neighbouring country who sound, well, pretty much, exactly the same but will happily make the same mistake with peoples further away from them.
Maybe we are all just Dick heads?
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
We are, we really are :p
ProcInc 2 years ago
Yeah if you want to make a New Zealander angry, call them an Australian.
If you want to infuriate a Canadian to the point of violence mistake them for an American.
No one wants that association especially these days..... You often see Americans hitchhiking around New Zealand with Canadian flags on their backpacks to distance themselves from their nationality.
NZ doesn't even let US warships into their harbours because we're anti-nuclear and they won't confirm or deny they have nukes.
warren52nz 2 years ago
ProcInc,
You will find that Crepe never actually cites anything specific in his arguments against evolutionary theory. His statements run along the lines of "Macro evolution can't/didn't happen because I say so".
You will never actually find any positive evidence of his claims, rather only ones that make vague statements that speak to his lack of knowledge about evolution.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
LOL, so according to you, science works according to proving what isn't possible instead of providing evidence to how it is possible. I have shown you to your face time and time again how you have nothing mroe than a straw man understanding of evolutionary theory, what are you even rambling on about?
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Proc,
This is the kind of double speak you will get from Crepe.
I pointed out that you have no positive claims against evolution, nothing to show that it is wrong in any regard. Even with your child like obsession with "macro" evolution you could provide positive claims showing it false.
You never do. Run along now.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Let's forget the fact you don't even know how science generally runs, please provide me with anything you take to be eidence for this "macro-evolution" and I'll show you what I mean.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
make that "evidence"
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Crepe,
Funny I said that you would never present a positive claim for why 'macro evolution' is not possible and you proved me right by asking me to provide evidence FOR macro evolution :P
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
LOL, now you are just arguing semantics, are you that much at a loss? "Evidence for macroevolution" means just that, whether or not we are to assume it is possible/plausible. Stop running circles funny man.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Microevolution IS macroevolution. Microevolution is small changes. If you get many many many small changes it becomes a big change or macroevolution. Microevolution is just microevolution over millions of years. there is no barrier between them.
sunset261 2 years ago
Because evolution happens gradually we would expect macroevolution to be broken down into microevolutionary events.
Yet people can't extrapolate the reverse implication that microevolution must have accumulative results
ProcInc 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc Because evolution happens gradually we would expect big evolution to be broken down into little evolutionary events.
Yet people can't extrapolate the reverse implication that small evolution must have accumulative results.
REALLY?
gregrutz 10 months ago
"science works according to proving what isn't possible instead of providing evidence to how it is possible."
Actually, that's quite accurate. Science can actually only disprove and never prove.
Evolution has been confirmed based on predictions and substantial evidence particularly in developmental biology and genetics including molecular biology but it stands most prominently as a science because it has not been falsified
ProcInc 2 years ago
When macro-evolution is "observed"? A "descriptive inevitability"? Are you joking? Apparently, a "reproductive strain that is transcendable" is evidence for this "macro" evolution? The only time scientists claimed to have observed macro-evolution was when they decided to toy with hox genes, and yet the results were disastrous in terms of what was produced. This video is just a puff of hot air.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Actually we see examples of macro evolution often. I can point you to a study showing lizards developing morphological changes in skull size, weight, jaw length as well as evolving new stomach valves because of the change in diet. This was observed over 36 years when lizards were put on an island to observe how they might go extinct. They didn't, they evolved and survived.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Sir, macro-evolution would have to include evolutionary processess showing progression from one species to an entirely new one, this is required if you want to assert universal common descent is reality. Variations in skull size, weight, and jaw length does nothing to prove UCD. Macro-evolution would entail examples such as pakicetus evolving into modern day cetaceans, but I am sure you can see how ridiculous that notion is.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Of course evolution includes a speciation. We've seen this happen.
Yes the pakicetus evolving into the cetaceans we see today is an example of evolution. What you seem to gloss over is the estimated 53 million years between the pakicetus and the whales we see today.
With that much time it's not very silly at all but highly likely. The fact that we find no modern whale skeletons dating back to 53 million years means they came from somewhere and evolution explains how.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"Of course evolution includes a speciation. We've seen this happen. "
oops, My baloney detector is going off, I sense some equivocation happening here. Yes speciation exists, but what is speciation? Reproductive isolation? Does this account for the "man to molecule" notion? What is evolution? Yes evolution happens, but to what extent? Look, these finches have different beak types. Of course, that must mean all life came from molecules.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Crepe,
You seem to be deliberately being dishonest here. Evolution is the study of how life changes over time. It deals with living organisms that reproduce. Evolution makes no claim on how life originally began just as atomic theory does not deal with where atoms came from. I hope we are clear on this.
(continued in next post)
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
You are correct that there are several definitions of species depending on what field of study is being talked about.
A common definition is a group of animals that are capable of breeding and producing fertile offspring.
An example is the horse and the donkey. Breeding is possible but produces generally infertile children, mules and hinnys. Though they share many of the same morphological traits their inability to breed successfully is one reason they are classified as different species.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
You are correct that we must have a clear understanding of evolution and terms.
Species for example is used by several natural sciences and can refer to different defnitions.
One easy one is "a subset of a genus, a population capable of reproducing fertile offspring".
We can see horses and donkeys, while similar in morphology, cannot produce fertile offspring. Mules are infertile and hinnys are infertile the majority of the time.
The inability to reproduce is one indicator of species.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
We have observed species that can no longer breed with it's parent population. This can be
for a variety of reasons.
Physical changes may lead to the inability to breed because of changes at or near the reproduction organs.
Physical changes can also lead to social reasons why breeding will not occur, a change in color, size or scent for example.
If the genetic information has changed enough you will get offspring that are not fertile, like mules, so that reproduction is no longer viable.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
I'd suggest researching "ring species".
In cases of ring species, we see animals that can interbreed with species close to them in the geologic chain, but the species on the far extremes cannot breed with each other. This shows how evolution works with species that separate geologically where the environment has led to evolution that makes breeding impossible for species at the far ends of each other.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
I know what ring species are, sir. What you fail to understand is how equivocating documented instances of speciation as evidence for universal common descent is not valid. UCD and macro-evolution go hand in hand, reproductive isolation does nothing to support these concepts.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
*facepalm*
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
lol, why *facepalm*? You're giving evidence for "macro" evolution which isn't evidence for it at all. Speciation occurs by definition (according to the biological species concept) when reproduction isolation occurs, but this does nothing to evidence macro-evolution whatsoever.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
I just know where you are going with this argument.
See the thing here is that you would only define evidence as something you see happen in front of you. The fact that what you want to see would take potentially thousands if not millions of years means in your mind that we cannot say it occurred.
When I point out evidence of the fossil record, no modern fossils being, the clear development of the whale for example, you will shrug it away as coincidence or fantasy.
(continued)
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
(continued from above)
By your reasoning we cannot say anything happened outside of observation, which is patently false. This becomes an argument from ignorance. You can't be bothered to learn about taxonomy and paleontology so you say others are making things up for some unknown reason.
Forensic teams can rebuild faces from bone fragments, zooologists can determine species from picked over bone remains, this same science is used in paleontology yet here it's wrong for some reason.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"UCD and macro-evolution go hand in hand"
Macroevolution is simply speciation so this need not bethe case.
Indeed Universal Common descent has been proven with molecular biology and palaeontology hundreds of times in different tests even if macroevolution hadn't been.
If you give a valid definition of macroevolution you will find it is as I say a descriptive inevitability
ProcInc 2 years ago
Reproductive isolation alone does not account for bio-diversity. What are you saying? Macro-evolution is by definition change above the level of a species and cannot be restricted to reproductive isolation. This is only obvious, as breeding barriers can only prove to be the initial step but will not explain why or how a certain species will change overtime in order to yield large-scale changes in over all morphology, anatomy, or structure.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Crepesupreme,
You seem to have some issue with evolution over time. There is nothing stopping large scale morphology, anatomy and structure changes given mutation + natural selection + time.
There is no barrier here, I don't know why you think there is. If you absolutely need to see it happen for yourself, wait around for a few millions years.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
You cannot have universal common descent without macroevolution.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Of course we have evolution above the species level. Why would you think we don't?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
uuuh...where did I say there isn't...? You are misreading my comments.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
I am disappointed that you think I do not know the difference between evolution and abiogensis. You seem to have it the wrong way. Where abiogensis supposedly leaves off, evolution supposedly picks up. Hence, evolution began at the molecular level, with molecules that supposedly fulfilled the necessary requirements to sustain life. Thus, stating that evolutionary theory entails the rather ridiculous prospect of molecules to man is far from dishonesty.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"Hence, evolution began at the molecular level"
Correction: Evolution 'occurs' at the molecular level but is only referred to as evolution in the biological sense if it is occuring within a life-form (RNA-DNA homeostatic replicator)
Indeed a form of Natural selection is involved in the steps to the first living things, but the origin of life is the origin of evolution.
'Molecules to man' is a demonstration of your willingness to mislead through oversimplification
ProcInc 2 years ago
Molecules to man is exactly what evolutionary theory entails; you really have nothing to comment concerning that. Yet somehow I show my willingness to mislead? Stating the obvious is somehow misleading? Truthfully, it is you who needs to sugar coat the issue with clever sophistication in order for the notion to sit comfortably within the recesses of your mind. It has nothing to do with me doing any wrong.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
CrepeSupreme,
You are being dishonest by the molecule to man statement. Evolution deals with the evolution of life, abiogenesis deals with the first building blocks of life occurring naturally.
Suggesting that we need to fully understand and demonstrate the first protein all the way to modern man before we can be sure of evolution is silly.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"protein all the way to modern man before we can be sure of evolution is silly. "
No because proteins alone do not meet the requirements for life, what are you even saying. And you accuse me of being dishonest...?
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
*facepalm*
Protein was just an example of the kind of structure early life would have formed.
Again, you ignored the overall comment. It is dishonest to suggest that if we cannot account for every step between abiogenesis, the first life form, up to modern man then evolution is not true.
I'm sorry but science does not require that kind of complete proof before it can investigate and come to an understanding of nature.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"Protein was just an example of the kind of structure early life would have formed"
Ok, let me get this straight. I am discussing evolution, yet you want to say I am arguing proteins becoming men and then when I respond telling you that isn't what I meant you reiterate and say how it is "proteins" that are products of what would be early life which would have been what evolved into men...O_O I think you are confused.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Crepe,
Stop being an ass.
You said "Molecules to man is exactly what evolutionary theory entails"
Right? Maybe look down at your comment?
I've said several times now, evolution deals with changes in living organisms over time. It does not deal with how life came to exist on earth. Abiogenesis deals with how life may have come about, evolution deals with changes once that life came to be and began reproducing.
Ok? Clear enough that you can stop avoiding questions?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"Again, you ignored the overall comment. It is dishonest to suggest that if we cannot account for every step between abiogenesis, the first life form, up to modern man then evolution is not true."
You are right, that is dishonest, but it isn't even what I was arguing in the first place. I am arguing macro-evolution, not abiogensis. Again, you seem to show how you are confused.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Again, you brought up the "molecule to man" argument. So don't put that on us.
As far as macro evolution goes, what is to stop it from happening? Evolution is muation + natural selection + time.
Why would evolution above the species level (macro evolution) not be possible? Why do we have the evidence in form of fossils, taxonomy, phylegenic trees, genetic markers showing common ancestory, etc?
What stops it from happening?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Let me just send you a message and be rid of these comment boxes, this is getting tiring.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
It is not hard to understand that evolution must have began on the microscopic level, this is what I am refering to. Why are you insisting on calling me dishonest?
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Because evolution does not deal with molecules forming the first life, abiogenesis does. Get that straight and stop saying evolution deals with "molecules to man", it doesn't.
To confuse this suggests that evolution is incomplete because we lack understanding of how life began initially. This is not true. Evolution deals with life that is reproducing, has mutations and is under natural selection and is given time.
Evolution does not speak to how life began.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Please tell me what the "first" life form would have been. As long as you have a life form, you are to have evolution; whether it be visible or invisible to human eye.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
I have no idea. To a large degree it depends on how you define life. Is reproduction life? We see viruses reproduce but we do not consider that life. Would it be early reproducing molecules enclosed in the very first membrane, a protocell if you would? How complex would this have to be before we would call it life?
Honestly I don't know. I think that is part of the challenge of abiogenesis and molecular biology, where do we draw the line to determine where life starts.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Regardless, this is not an issue with evolution. As soon as life began to reproduce, mutate and was subjected to natural selection, evolution was occurring and has been since.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"Molecules to man is exactly what evolutionary theory entails"
Like I say it is also dishonest to make this statement because it it oversimplification.
However, we are made of molecules.
Do you know what we aren't made of? Dirt and dust. Which funnily enough is what creationism explicitly states we are made of (Genesis 2:7)
ProcInc 2 years ago
(1) Your contempt for creationism proves nothing. I never made any reference to creationism, thus referencing it is invalid and only shows bias on your part. It is clear you base your assertions of macroevolution on faulty grounds, as it is the supposed evolutionary process instituted to explain bio-diversity properly and yet you restrict it to reproductive isolation.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(2) Macro-evolution is by definition "change at/above the level of a species", a purposely ambiguous statement so the likes of you can come around and simply equivocate claiming how it is simply "speciation" and yet you want to tell me it matters not that macro-evolution is not proven as we have proven UCD. This begs the notion of UCD being plausible without macroevolution and that is simply out of the question.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(3) You cannot seem to make up your mind as you equate macroevolution with speciation (reproductive isolation) in an attempt to prove it and then you consequently tell me it matters not if it remains unproven for whatever reasons. Contradictions indicate reasoning that is inherently flawed.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Like I say it is also dishonest to make this statement because it it oversimplification.
It becomes apparent that you are not saying I am wrong, simply dishonest.I find it highly hypocritical that evolutionists want to divide evolutionary theory into quanta and interpret them individually with no regards for coherence or consequences. They want to present a narrative claiming it to be uniform and then chop this narrative into pieces and dictate how it should be viewed or interpreted.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
What the hell are you going on about Crepe?
Evolution requires coherence and consequences. It would be easy to disprove evolution, find a lizard with nipples, find a modern complex animal fossil from millions of years ago, find a lack of genetic markers in animals that at grouped together through taxonomy, etc.
Next evolution predicts what we will find.
I'm sorry we haven't found anything to contradict evolution yet, but saying it's not coherent is ridiculous like all of your claims.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Excuse me, but if you believe evolution to provide a coherent story then you wouldn't be accusing me of being dishonest when I refer to the first life forms (which were microscopic entities) becoming men. You are the one who makes ridiculus claims, flashing the "mutation+natural selection+time" card and pretending all is justified without even substantiating it with any evidence. This is nothing more than a blind guess of what nature might have intended.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
I'm sorry we haven't found anything to contradict evolution yet,
Well of course, this is so blatantly obvious as any evidence seems to arbitrarily becomes evidence for evolution regardless if it is even relevant. Evolutionists have proven it doesnt even matter if it contradicts evolution, it will automatically become evidence FOR evolution. So please dont give me that.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
I will give you that. You do not get to say that evidence found for evolution is actually evidence against evolution unless you can explain why.
Pick a fossil. Demonstrate how it does not fit with evolutionary theory. Or shut the hell up until you get an education.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
You're insulting my level of education is only spawned from you getting angry evidently, as I do have an education, I am a student of the sciences. That is irrelevant. First let me make it clear we have apparently moved on to another topic. Second, I need mention how you apparently attribute fossils as the only evidence for evolution? Ironically, trends in the fossil record can prove to be the biggest slap in the face to the concepts of UCD and macroevolution.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(1) I neednt mention more than the Cambrian era. The fact that this stubborn notion of species shifting morphology, structure, and anatomy over time persists even in light of this evidence simply makes it a laughing matter. We observe all living organisms in this brief period of 55 million years appearing in fairy modern forms.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(2)We assert that all the 7 major phyla that abruptly appeared in this period somehow came into existence by evolutionary processes despite the fact that any sort of simpler forms or transitional forms are absent. Not only that, but the fossils would indicate any forms of graduation/saltation were either suspended or simply non-existent.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"(2)We assert that all the 7 major phyla ...."
The use of "we" means you are quotemining someone. Who is this "we"? Please cite the source for this.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
I AM NOT QUOTE MINING ANYONE. Stop it with these stupid accusations, I haven't gone to any creationists sites, what are you talking about? It is a generally known fact of the cambrian era that these phyla were somehow rapidly produced, by "we" I meant the scientific community, get a clue.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Crepe,
Fine, do not admit to quote-mining, it's cute.
However I suggest in the future not to use the royal 'we' unless you can demonstrate a consensus in the scientific community via citation. As you are obviously not a biologist and have very little clue about evolution, it just makes you look silly.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"However I suggest in the future not to use the royal 'we' unless you can demonstrate a consensus in the scientific community via citation."
It only makes you look silly, as you ask for well-known evidence concerning fossils from the Cambrian era. Just because I mention "fairly modern forms" and it doesn't make sense to you, ask for an explanation before lashing out with accusations to quote mining.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Listen Crepe, you're embarrassing yourself.
Most of your arguments are addressed in the very video series you are commenting on and even in other videos I already have made.
There is no controversy behind the accuracy of the fact that the biodiversity and complexity on our planet is the result of evolution from a common ancestor.
Your objections are outdated religious nonsense
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Listen Crepe, you're embarrassing yourself."
If anything it is you who is embarassing himself. You err heavily in equating macro-evolution simply with speciation and asserting this is all that is required for bio-diversity when it is not. Your replies to my comments are rife with contradictions and yet somehow it is I who embarassed myself. Go figure.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"You err heavily in equating macro-evolution simply with speciation"
that is the proper scientific definition.
If you have a better definition than the one given at 3:03 you are welcome to provide it and the source you got it from
ProcInc 2 years ago
"that is the proper scientific definition."
Are you insane? If you want to delude yourself into believing reproductive isolation is all that is required for bio-diversity then I will not bother.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Your objections are outdated religious nonsense
LOL. I would have figured an evolutionist like yourself would have played the religion card. All you are doing is simply showing how weak a case evolution has, as you turn to reasoning that is dishonest and outright fallacious. Any sort of attempt to scrutnize evolutionary theory in a way that undermines it is somehow arbitrarily linked with religious motivation even if you have no clue how or why. LOL, nice try.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"I would have figured an evolutionist like yourself would have played the religion card."
Religious beliefs are the only objection to evolution there is. No legitimate scientific casde against evolution has ever stood peer review.
Evolution on the other hand is peer reviewed and scrutinised ona daily basis and despite what you want to believe provides the most accurate model to explain new discoveries.
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Religious beliefs are the only objection to evolution there is. No legitimate scientific casde against evolution has ever stood peer review."
The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution vehemently, and you wonder why this is the case? Majority of the times these cases were either outright refused or not fairly evaluated.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(contd) Don't give me this bias garbage, it is irrelevant. Evolutionists have made it clear that subjectivity is not an issue of importance. You are so desperate to defend evolution that you need to create this illusion that any objection towards it is simply religiously motivated because it is somehow this supreme, impervious theory.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution vehemently, and you wonder why this is the case?"
No, no I don't wonder. Not for a second, why would I? Its a fact and so the most intelligent people on the planet indeed SHOULD support it.
ProcInc 2 years ago
So basically by "fairly modern" you thought I meant in terms of present day life? LOL. I meant "fairly modern" in terms of life during the Cambrian in light of pre-cambrian evidence. Pre-cambrian fossils are noted to be simplistic, with practically no complexity whatsoever. Cambrian fossils trends show not only a break away from simplicity; but a complete permeation of complex life forms. Quote mining? Do you not know your own evidence?
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Again, you quote 'fairly modern'.
Please give an example of a 'fairly modern' fossil found in the cambrian age.
Can you?
It's fun to watch you quote mine and then refuse to back up anything, shows how idiotic your objections have been so far.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
It's not that I am a typical creationist, it is that you are a typical evolutionist in accusing others of being creationists with no evidence. You want evidence in terms of fossils, they are there; it just requires a little research.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
What I find ridiculous is how you seem to not accept the fact that the pre-cambrian to cambrian transition entails incredibly quick, large scale changes from simplicity to straight away complexity. You ask for direct evidence and yet you deny the evidence for it at the same time. Ironic isnt it.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
You do not dispute that we find simpler organisms further back and more complex closer to our own time.
This isnt even relevant to the discussion of Cambrian evidence, you only show once again how you cannot hold the proper perspective for the proper argument.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Crepe,
You are the one shifting the argument constantly not I.
You say "The fact that this stubborn notion of species shifting morphology, structure, and anatomy over time persists even in light of this evidence" this in reference to the cambrian explosion.
What about the cambrian explosion throws any doubt on evolutionary theory?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"This isnt even relevant to the discussion of Cambrian evidence"
I suggest you watch my other video 'the cambrian explosion Remastered'
ProcInc 2 years ago
I suggest you watch my other video 'the cambrian explosion Remastered'
Just to let you know I responded to Looking4Coffee and I do not need you directing me to more of your videos. I wasnt able to post here while, anyways. I know about the Cambrian era, I do not need you to bastardize it for me as you have seemingly done with macro-evolution
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(1) Cambrian era is permeated with complex, multi-cellular life forms, this doesnt seem rational in terms of evolution as pre-cambrian organisms were virtually simplistic and unicellular altogether. Its not a question of evolution following through, its a matter of a massive, and abrupt leap forward. In light of evolutionary theory, this is simply irrational and uncanny.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
As we leave pre-cambrian, all of a sudden, we have the Cambrian era showing us massive amounts of complex, multicellular organisms arising together, instantaneously, creating the slew of major phyla that exist today. Body plans of these organisms seem to appear out of nowhere, as there is no indication in the fossil trends to any simpler forms or transitional forms that can account for the arising of these body plans through any form of an evolutionary gradient.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"As we leave pre-cambrian, all of a sudden, we have the Cambrian era showing us massive amounts of complex, multicellular organisms arising together"
Not really, the Cambrian explosion did not start alongside the Cambrian era.
If you actually did know about the Cambrian era you would know that
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Not really, the Cambrian explosion did not start alongside the Cambrian era."
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I simply refer to the Cambrian explosion being found within the Cambrian, never did I state explicitly it started alongside.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"there is no indication in the fossil trends to any simpler forms or transitional forms"
This is very wrong, not only does the ediacaran biota provide with transitional forms of the phyla that appear in the Cambrian (such as Cloudina and Spriggina) but most of the Cambrian Fauna itself are transitional forms (For instance the lobopods linking arthropods and worms)
the cambrian explosion is not an issue for evolution and hasn't been since 1874
ProcInc 2 years ago
This is very wrong, not only does the ediacaran biota provide with transitional forms of the phyla that appear in the Cambrian (such as Cloudina and Spriggina) but most of the Cambrian Fauna itself are transitional forms (For instance the lobopods linking arthropods and worms) the cambrian explosion is not an issue for evolution and hasn't been since 1874
Based on the extorted nonsense you just spewed, I am guessing I should be worried that it hasnt been an issue since 1874.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Contd)You only stand as a testament to how evolutionists misuse evidence and propose transitional forms that cannot be substantiated as true transitional forms. Cloudina lived in late Ediacaran and went extinct at the base of the Cambrian.Sprigginas affinity and relation to other groups within the Ediacaran biota is still unknown,as is the case with many of the Ediacaran biota that you have made reference to. And yet, you take it as factual, concrete evidence.Typical of an evolutionis
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"Typical of an evolutionist"
What exactly is an evolutionist?
Is it anything like a gravitationalist or an atomist i.e. the acceptor of a scientific fact and its theory?
ProcInc 2 years ago
Not one scientist refers to himself as a gravitationalist or an atomist. The term "evolutionist" does not even fall in the same category, as it inherently carries a significance. Mainly because it entails the process of over-exaggeration beyond evidential support, which is exactly what you have done in your postulations concerning the Cambrian. You stand as a shining example to how Darwinian thought produces bad science, be proud.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"You stand as a shining example to how Darwinian thought produces bad science"
Only if you define 'bad science' as anyone who disagrees with you.
Who has no expertise whatsoever in any scientific field and refuses to back up his claims with sources.
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Sprigginas affinity and relation to other groups within the Ediacaran biota is still unknown,as is the case with many of the Ediacaran biota that you have made reference to."
Is Spriggina's existance an issue?
No?
Or indeed any Precambrian fossils?
Here's the concrete evidence.
The further back you go in the fossil record the simpler the creatures are, Ediacaran is transitional (of if you rather intermediate) between unicelluar eukaryotes and Cambrian fauna
ProcInc 2 years ago
(1)The further back you go in the fossil record the simpler the creatures are, Ediacaran is transitional (of if you rather intermediate) between unicelluar eukaryotes and Cambrian fauna
You only completely stretch and misuse what evolution takes to be a transitional form. Transitional would imply we know where the organism came from and what it is, and we know where its going and what it becomes.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(2)You oversimplify the term transitional and equate it merely to an intermediate, even if there are no definitive links or connections whatsoever. Spriggina exists and is thus somehow a transitional form by default, without any evidential support whatsoever. The amount of bias present within you interpretations is blaring, as there is clearly no evidence that can demonstrate how the Ediacaran biota played any role in evolutionary process but you take it as evolution nonetheless.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"Transitional would imply we know where the organism came from and what it is"
haha wroong.
Transitional is a species that shares some defining traits of one taxa, some defining traits of another and is basal to both groups.
If you don'y know scientific definitions, making up your own doesn't suffice mate.
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Based on the extorted nonsense you just spewed, I am guessing I should be worried that it hasnt been an issue since 1874. "
When something hasn't been a problem for over 120 years yes you generally shouldn't be using it as an argument.
Not even the discoverer of the Burgess Shale (Walcott) saw it as a challenge to evolution not did the scientist who performed the most study on it (Comway-Morris) who is also a strong christian
only silly creationists do
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Body plans of these organisms seem to appear out of nowhere"
Actually the body plans originated about 100million years BEFORE the Cambrian period (let alone the cambrian explosion which was later on in the period)
helminthopsis and vernamimalcula for instance
ProcInc 2 years ago
Actually the body plans originated about 100million years BEFORE the Cambrian period (let alone the cambrian explosion which was later on in the period)
helminthopsis and vernamimalcula for instance
You show how you are imprisoned by the evolutionary train of thought; requiring you to cling stubbornly to the notion of uniformitarianism, even if it leads you to such unsubstantiated, over-exaggerated, and outright ludicrous statements.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(contd)You would reduce the evidence from Cambrian times to nothing, with no true, new innovations whatsoever but that it is all a working process on the old; the complete opposite of what is observed. This is simply evolutionary propaganda rehashed. And based on the examples you give, I cringeyou only prove my point. Helminthopsisis a genus of alga, and Vernanimalcula is far from consensually accepted to be a representative of bilateria, and for a good reason.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"Helminthopsisis a genus of alga"
Gee, not that its possible there might be a different precambrian trace fossil dubbed Helminthopsis too that . A little more research and you would have found this out
ProcInc 2 years ago
"You show how you are imprisoned by the evolutionary train of thought"
Just like all biologists, chemists and scientists who produce anything worthy of publishing..
Name one modern credible denier of evolution and I'll show you the religious motivation and lack of said credibility
ProcInc 2 years ago
"requiring you to cling stubbornly to the notion of uniformitarianism"
Uniformitarianism is the proposal that the forces acting in the present are those that affected the past. It is primiarily a geological discipline and just happens to be a fact that only a believer in the outdated schools of thought for catastrophism or (dare I say) "biblical judgement" (*cough*Noah*cough*) could deny.
ProcInc 2 years ago
Uniformitarianism is the proposal that the forces acting in the present are those that affected the past. It is primiarily a geological discipline and just happens to be a fact that only a believer in the outdated schools of thought for catastrophism or (dare I say) "biblical judgement" (*cough*Noah*cough*) could deny.
Uniformitarinism is strictly hinged on observation. It is based on what can be observed and validated, not blind inferrence based on elusive, ill-used evidence.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
You're entire argument hinges on putting up blinders against legitimate science (With I should add, nothing to replace)
For instance, consider the most complex animal pre-cambrian explosion and the most complex after (to be generous to you)
The chronological gap between when these species lived and the conditions' radical changes over this time.
Surprisingly little change (except superficially) over several million years.
Unsubstantiated? subscribe to a journal
ProcInc 2 years ago
You're entire argument hinges on putting up blinders against legitimate science (With I should add, nothing to replace)
Legitimate science? So says the one who proposes reproductive isolation alone accounts for all bio-diversity. So says the one who proposes Ediacaran biota as transitional forms to Cambrian organisms when the affinities of these organisms are completely unknown. Whose the one who has blinders against legitimate science? Oh the sweet irony.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
They just appear like that in the fossils. Think I am lying? LOL, there is a reason the trends from Cambrian times are no referred to as rapid evolution or rapid progression but rapid APPEARANCE. Duh, its obvious. Screw it, evolution did it anyways.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"there is a reason the trends from Cambrian times are no referred to as rapid evolution or rapid progression but rapid APPEARANCE."
Not what you think.
Evolution is the origin of new taxa, in the Case of the Cambrian it was the origin of 9-11 modern phyla (However the superphylae of these had already evolved well before the cambrian)
you are grossly misrepresenting the Cambrian explosion
ProcInc 2 years ago
Evolution is the origin of new taxa, in the Case of the Cambrian it was the origin of 9-11 modern phyla (However the superphylae of these had already evolved well before the cambrian) you are grossly misrepresenting the Cambrian explosion
If anything, you are the one guilty of this. You hide behind definitions and try to mitigate/reverse the results observed from the Cambrian. Its ridiculous.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"If anything, you are the one guilty of this. You hide behind definitions and try to mitigate/reverse the results observed from the Cambrian. Its ridiculous."
Simple enough question then,
what is the source from which you get your information regarding the cambrian explosion?
ProcInc 2 years ago
what is the source from which you get your information regarding the cambrian explosion?
You simply try to call my bluff by asking for sources, but I am simply rehashing what we know concerning the Cambrian as can be read from any source of scientific information. You are the guilty one of extorting what we know concerning the Cambrian, that much is crystal clear. You asking me for sources only shows how you want to play dumb in order to try and make a case for yourself. Lol
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"You asking me for sources only shows how you want to play dumb in order to try and make a case for yourself."
Actually it's to simply test your credibility and honesty.
I can (and did in the video) provide multiple credible and published sources concerning the Cambrian explosion whereas you are merely relying on gaps.
Science works, creationism doesn't. Watch the video.
ProcInc 2 years ago
"pre-cambrian organisms were virtually simplistic and unicellular altogether."
Obviously you've never heard of the Ediacaran biota.
You really should watch the video. It demonstrates how your claims are silly
ProcInc 2 years ago
Obviously you've never heard of the Ediacaran biota.
Yes I have heard of Ediacaran biota. What you fail to mention oh so blatantly is that the Ediacaran biota IMMEDIATELY precedes the Cambrian and is generally far removed from pre-cambrian at large, as they appear at the very, very, very, end. This doesnt change the fact that simple, unicellular organisms dominate pre-cambrian. Gotta love your selective interpretations, and you think I am the one being silly
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"This doesnt change the fact that simple, unicellular organisms dominate pre-cambrian."
So what we have are simple unicellular organisms followed by more complex and diverse organisms immediately before the Cambrian, then even more complexity over the cambrian and then halfway through the Cambrian the complexity of the Cambrian explosion...and this is somehow a challenge to evolution.
The scientific consensus wins over an anonymous Youtube user trying to make an argument mate
ProcInc 2 years ago
So what we have are simple unicellular organisms followed by more complex and diverse organisms immediately before the Cambrian, then even more complexity over the cambrian and then halfway through the Cambrian the complexity of the Cambrian explosion...and this is somehow a challenge to evolution.
Now you want to purposely over simplify the issue so you can feign some sort of ambiguity in order to comfortably present a "scenario" that is somehow "possible" for evolution
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
(contd)This isn't science, it is putrid nonsense
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
"Now you want to purposely over simplify the issue"
Am I? So I left out perhaps that there is something more complex than the Cambrian fauna before the Cambrian?
No?
Exactly what is incorrect about that simple description of the fossil record?
ProcInc 2 years ago
If your objection is that a great deal of evolution happened during this 55 million year time, my answer is.. so?
LOL, this great deal of evolution is so stark that they literally term it an explosion. So?
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Your point? Evolution happened at a fast pace in this area. Over 50 or so million years.
Again, you refuse to point out any modern fossils found here to support your 'fairly modern' comment. You do not provide any fossil evidence contradiction evolutionary theory. You do not dispute that we find simpler organisms further back and more complex closer to our own time.
In short, you have no evidence to present to show evolutionary theory is false.
Typical creationist.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
And? What is your point? Have you not read about punctuated equilibrium, showing that life can evolve at faster or slower paces, not always at a slow constant?
Why do you always show a lack of perspective. The whole point of stating they appear in modern forms ties in with the blatant lack of any simpler forms or transitional forms during this era. This is not evidence for evolution, what dont you get? It doesnt have anything to do with punctuated equilibrium.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
Crepe,
Really? Again who are you quote mining, can you provide your source?
Your quote says 'fairly modern forms', what does that mean? How modern? You do realize we have fossilized life from BEFORE the cambrian era right? We know life existed before and after.
Name a fossil found in the cambrian era and let's compare how 'fairly modern' the animal is ok?
If your objection is that a great deal of evolution happened during this 55 million year time, my answer is.. so?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Crepe,
"We observe all living organisms in this brief period of 55 million years appearing in fairy modern forms."
And? What is your point? Have you not read about punctuated equilibrium, showing that life can evolve at faster or slower paces, not always at a slow constant?
Please do the world a favor and do some research before quotemining a creationalist website.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
This also goes to show how evolution in general is horrifically indecisive, juggling back and forth between idleness, graduation, and saltation. It's simply ridiculous.
CrepeSupreme 2 years ago
*facepalm*
Yes, because the complexity of all life on the planet should be simple and obvious. Now your just being deliberately idiotic. What happens when natural selection forces are not strong.. not much. You would get a species in statis. Are you so delusional that you think the forces that act on life are always constant? Do you not think that over millions of years periods of high and low pressure exists on species? Have you not read about punctuated equilibrium vs gradiation?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"A "descriptive inevitability"? "
Since change over time is inevitable due to the laws of population genetics then over the period of time life has been around macroevolution can does and inevitably accounts for the forms/diversity of the planet.
at 3:10 I give the proper description of macroevolution and in the next slide give an example.
In macroevolution a population eventually becaomes something new, at the same time it remains a group of what it was.
ProcInc 2 years ago
Good work, I'm looking forward to part 2!
docwarwick 3 years ago
Great video.
Saukko31 3 years ago
Bravo!
ILYIAB 3 years ago 2
Ooh, good I'll look forward to the future parts of this.
Link10893 3 years ago 3
coolies
ProcInc 3 years ago