The Cambrian Explosion Problem - the missing links and the record of the rocks

[dudepal187]

There have been transitional fossils found for almost every major transition, even the transition from single-celled to multicellular organisms. Reading even the most simplified scientific literature will show you this.

[sweetmikser]

@dudepal187 sighs. Force-fitting scattered, meager, and ambiguous fossils, to neurotically make them say what you want (a pathetic Darwinist pastime since the 19th century, kid) is NOT empirical "science", but mere speculation, and desperation. I feel sorry for drones like you. Buying the BS, cuz you WANT this junk to be true. Check out my video "Fossil Evidence - see what Darwinists have said". On my channel list. For realz... And see some "literature" that ram-rods your nonsense.

[shootomatic]

this is a great video. 

[katnils]

WARNING

This is not a video to look at for informing you about real science and all the relevant facts you look for.

This is a creationist pseudo science video.

[sweetmikser]

@katnils

WARNING

This typical dribble-brain Darwinist in-denial jerk-wad comment is not a comment to take seriously, but just to laugh off as a the brain-dead drone-ish dodge that it is, because it loves to deny the REAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES with stuff like the "Cambrian" & "pre-Cambrian" systems, issues and facts that DON'T EXACTLY HELP the Darwinist delusions. Everything in the video is FACTS (if not, specify how not), and the Darwinist comment is barf because of NOT WANTING TO FACE THE FACTS.

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser I too am a REJECTIONIST of all the EVOLUTIONARY MODELS (be it Darwinist, Punctuated Equillibrium, Paleanthology, Genome projects, DNA-based evolution, etc) and a hardcore critic of all their dating techniques. That includes REJECTING the CAMBRIAN EVOLUTION hypothesis too! But, I am an ATHEIST though I am also a BIG SKEPTIC of the EVOLUTIONARY models.

But, what my friend @katnils wrote to you can be DEBATED instead of blocking her. @katnils asked me to send her message to you:

CTD.

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser ****BEGIN MESSAGE FROM @katnils to YOU****

"Extremely cowardly of you to block me.

"I was writing this to those who are interested in searching for real scientific information about the Cambrian explosion. And not to those who aren´t interested in science but just search for someone spreading propaganda (leaving out information and distorting information) to confirm the belief you have decided to have no matter what the evidence are anyway. "

CONTD...

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser CONTD....

"That you blocked me from answering you confirms that you know perfectly well that you tell creationist propaganda lies about the Cambrian period (well known precious creationist lies) and wouldn´t be able to defend your lies. Extremely cowardly and dishonest of you to block me.

Now I also know that you block everyone who questions your creationist pseudo scientific version of the Cambrian period since I know that you also blocked redddbaron."

CONTD....

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser CONTD....

"You are really a lying hypocritical asshole. The ones who for real are interested in real science will at least find it anyway no matter how much you distort and leave out information (=lie) and block people to avoid being questioned. It should be obvious to most people that you are not interested in science but just interested in trying to spread creationist propaganda disinformation to defend your precious believes."

****END @katnils MESSAGE TO YOU****

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser **BEGIN SOME MORE MESSAGE FROM @katnils TO YOU**

"Hearing your hate filled voice and lies just really gets to me. I don´t care so much about your hatred for atheists as for your hatred for science. You are such an enemy of science in your cherry picking of facts, straw mans and intentional misunderstandings. You could have got answers for those numerous ignorant questions a long time ago if you would look for the answers and try to understand, for real, what evolution is."

CONTD..

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser CONTD

You could for example start with looking at sites answering creationist claims and don´t forget to search for knowledge about all sciences confirming the theory of evolution. It would be known that evolution is reality even without all fossils. I can´t stand your distortions of knowledge and your retarded refuse to understand that scientific knowledge has nothing to do with atheism and that science is not in the business of trying to disprove the existence of any god.

CONTD

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser CONTD..

How would anyone disprove a negative for that matter? Just what is wrong with American Christians?! How does pseudo science manage to dupe and retard more than half of you? Let me quote from the Wikipedia site "Objections to evolution" to you:

"H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at University of Rochester, notes that: Of the five founding fathers of twentieth-century evolutionary biology — Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane,

CONTD...

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser CONTD..

Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky — one was a devout Anglican who preached sermons and published articles in church magazines, one a practicing Unitarian, one a dabbler in Eastern mysticism, one an apparent atheist, and one a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and the author of a book on religion and science."

Here´s also a great lecture about how teachers have to deal with this religious pseudo science creationist propaganda

CONTD...

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser CONTD...

and the extreme retardation of the US it leads to, because of people like you, instead of being able to spend time on teaching science as they are supposed to do in science classes:

"What Americans Think of Evolution"

Check it out and then search for answers for real instead of pretending there´s no answers to your questions, pretending you understand evolution, when you obviously don´t, and instead of ranting about your hatred for atheists.

CONTD...

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser CONTD...

What has your hatred for atheists got to do with scientific knowledge? Just grow the fuck up instead of contributing to retarding the world more and spreading irrational paranoid religious hatred for scientific knowledge. If is precisely because of arrogant and self chosen retards like you that anyone has problems with religion in the first place. It was people like you who stopped the scientific progress in the western world for a thousand years

CONTD...

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser CONTD...

and it is because of people like you it is called the dark ages."

**END SOME MORE MESSAGES FROM @katnils TO YOU**

AMEN, SHALOM, SHANTHI, PEACE, SALAAM!!!

[rationalindian10]

@sweetmikser Message from @redddbaron to U:

**BEGIN redddbaron's MESSAGE**

I Reddbaron am a Christian, yet you blocked me after 1 post and no debate. That is intellectually dishonest. It also shows a complete lack of faith.

Titus 1 : 13-14

This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.

Consider yourself rebuked.

**END redddbaron's MESSAGE**

[sweetmikser]

@rationalindian10 you're NOT a Biblical "Christian", if you believe (idiotically and wrongly) that we came from "ape-men", and don't really believe in the Adam account, and INHERITED SIN AND DEGENERATION situation, as you can't logically believe in Christ's Blood atonement as the SECOND "Adam". "Theistic Evolution" (if you think we came from "fish" or "reptiles" and then later "apes" and "ape-men ancestors" etc, is a DEMONIC AND STUPID HERESY. You're a pagan, not a Biblical "Christian". Wake up.

[peyupsgurl]

@katnils i pity you

[v1x3n88r]

Worst pseudo-evolution video EVER. Did you get dropped at birth?

[sweetmikser]

@v1x3n88r care to elaborate, cutie? How so? I mean, the Cambrian Explosion and the pre-Cambrian Blank, etc etc, and the structural gaps between major groups and families, and new families appearing suddenly, and families remaining constant, and no real in-between stages, etc etc...don't exactly help the Darwinian "gradation" mythological theory, now does it. So were Darwinist drone-tards and Kool-Aid sippers, uh, "dropped at birth", that they can't (or just won't) see these facts and problems?

[v1x3n88r]

@sweetmikser The Precambrian is anything but a "blank". Fossilization in the Cambrian occurred due to organisms developing preservable "hard parts" such as shells and cartilage. As this adaptation did not occur prior to the start of the Cambrian period the occurrence of fossils is rare. There is much evidence of diverse life in the Precambrian. For example, the Ediacaran fauna in Australia and the abundant fossils of the Vendian period. Look it up, you might learn something.

[sweetmikser]

@v1x3n88r listen, drone-tard, it's a "blank" compared to what theoretically SHOULD be there, if Darwinian hallucinations and notions are true. But it just aint. It's a blank. It's even said in the video that there are SOME things in the pre-Cambrian, but not even close to justifying what's in the Cambrian. Wake up... Stop lapping up junk from Talkorigins all the time, like a blind idiot...and YOU learn something. Coral is found in the Cambrian period, and coral reefs are worldwide.

[sweetmikser]

@v1x3n88r (2nd) Coral is found in the Cambrian period, and coral reefs are worldwide. How did a worldwide crop of fossils suddenly pop up in one era without any previous ancestry??

Scientific fact: In many localities there is NO apparent non-comformity between the Cambrian rocks and those underlying them, and still no fossils are present before the "Cambrian".

Informed catastrophic geologists tell us that there are well over 20,000 missing links between the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian period.

[sweetmikser]

@v1x3n88r (3rd) the old lame gas of "hard parts" is nonsense. Jelly fish are soft-bodied, and they still leave marks. The point, bright boy, is that no matter how much you desperately and stupidly want there to no big problem with the whole pre-Cambrian blank to Cambrian EXPLOSION issue, and burying your head in your ass, in drone-ish and pathetic stupidity, it does NOT make the hard facts, problems, and issues go away. The "divine Foot" that you arrogantly won't allow keeps implicating itself.

[tr1xt3r88]

@sweetmikser Thank you for blocking me, you're very clever. Do you understand how evolution works? It is hard to fathom the expanse of geological time and the rate at which genetic change occurs.

Coral reefs are composed of organisms that secrete calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to form the reefal structure in temperature latitudes by thousands of species belonging to hundreds of genii, all of which evolve over time.

Please stop spreading your pseudo-science and read some real scientific literature.

[sweetmikser]

@tr1xt3r88 I blocked you NOT for honest challenges, but for your rude incivility. Also, to be honest, I've been on the merry-go-round before (believe me I have) and have gone in DEPTH about this stuff, and wrangled...and I'm busy...and don't have time or patience for it right now. For real. And I already know about the CONJECTURE of "gradualism" over time. The point is that the sudden appearing of various life forms in the Cambrian strata has been ADMITTED to be a mystery, even by Darwinists.

[redddbaron]

@sweetmikser Why do you get so upset about evolution? God set the laws of nature, evolution follows the laws of nature. It is as simple as that. "To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension." Freeman Dyson

"Science and religion are two essential components in the search for truth. Denying either is a barren approach." Martin Nowak

[sweetmikser]

@redddbaron depends on what you mean by the word "evolution".The equivocation fallacies, bait-and-switches of Darwinists are habitual and many. If you mean "bacteria resisting drugs" (despite remaining bacteria and despite losing other functions too, from mutational disturbances) "variations", "adaptations" WITHIN MAJOR GROUPS, etc...then NO PROBLEM AT ALL. If you talk about non-scientific SPECULATIVE non-empirical junk like phantom "ape-men ancestors" or "fish ancestry of humans", then PROBLEM.

[redddbaron]

@sweetmikser Didn't you know? Even the Bible supports (in a metaphoric way), Mankind's ancestors evolving from smaller brained naked "animal" ancestors. U wonder how in depth you have really studied the Bible to be making ridiculous claims like "non-scientific SPECULATIVE non-empirical junk like phantom "ape-men ancestors"

It is your claims that are neither scientific nor scriptural.

[sweetmikser]

@redddbaron you're hallucinating...not only in the fossil record and blood, but also in the Bible. lol... Ah, no, the Bible indicates direct creation from the ground (miraculously and specially, and divinely...stuff that small-minded Atheist losers and Materialists can't fathom and DON'T WANT to be true). And that there is DEGENERATION, after free will was abused and sin and corruption entered. NO "evolving" upwards from lower animals. Your claim is "ridiculous", and I don't have time for it.

[woodfish3001]

Of course! Ignore the evidence. Facts can't be used to explain anything. I can't believe I used to think there was no god. Now because evolution can't be real god MUST be real. Its the only alternative after all.

[Escotch82]

lol, i knew the guy in SAW was a creationist!

[sweetmikser]

@Escotch82 so are many "Theistic Satanists"....means nothing. But it's nice of you to harp on minor nonsense like an immature idiot loser, and can't say anything substantial and specific to the actual points and facts IN the video itself. Dodged that. To simply barf up stupidity. (Typical of committed Darwinist drone-tards and Atheist fanatics and monkeys). Anyway...kid, I don't have time for silliness. Try absorbing the issues and problems with this whole Darwinian speculation and myth.

[AbuRaad7373]

@sweetmikser ATLASofCREATION dot c O m ... Atheism Exposed.. See also Video on youtube *EVOLUTION DECEIT* and *COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION*, both are documentaries made from the books of the same author as of ATLASofCREATION dot c O m, Adnan Oktar(Harun Yahya). Also Visit AQIDAH.COM, type *DARWIN* in search and read the article. Evolution is a deviant Aqeedah first started by Mutazilah(and Sufis etc) dating 1000 years before Darwin. Darwins contemporary called it *Muhammden Theory*.

[sweetmikser]

@Escotch82 so are many "Theistic Satanists"...so? means nothing. But it's nice of you to harp on minor nonsense, like an immature idiot loser, and can't say anything substantial and specific to the actual points and facts in the video itself. You dodged that. To simply barf up stupidity. (Typical of committed Darwinist drone-tards and Atheist fanatics and monkeys). Anyway...kid, I don't have time for silliness. Try absorbing the issues and problems with this whole Darwinian speculation and myth.

[sondano]

LIAR

[jaykulls]

What he is sayihng is completely untrue. How can any human honestly believe such a stupid theory. It you need to completely ignore the evidence, you must surely know you are wrong.

[skippy13312000]

I find the idea that you think evolutionsists are hallucianting or seeing things that aren't there when you insist that evidence not being found yet is proof of ID something that has never been observed either. You can provide no fossil ever being found that was out of place with regards to it's time period. There's never been a human bone found in the cambrian for instance. It's never happened ever anywhere. If you can give us just one then you could shoot evolution down. But you can't.

[sweetmikser]

@skippy13312000 and there should NOT be any human bone in the Cambrian. I AGREE with you. And do you know why? Because I'm an OLD EARTH Creationist. I'm NOT a Young Earth "fundie". Science and the Bible (original Hebrew) do NOT say the earth is only "6000 years". Scripture says that only about MAN himself, not the earth or the universe. Two quick points. There's a "gap" in Genesis 1:2 in a sense, and also the "days" in Hebrew "yohm" never were restricted to 24 hours. But rather periods etc...

[MindHaunts]

@sweetmikser LOL. your the lamest faggot creationist i ever found. you should be instinct by now. Your not even worthy for some extreme explanation because your mind is just weak.

[sweetmikser]

@MindHaunts and you're just a silly Darwinist drone-tard psycho, with no sanity or substance, but just convenient dodges and ad homs.... So what's your point, punk? Here's a nice "quote-mine" for you to dismiss like the committed zombie that you are...

David M. Raup, Geologist:

"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found. Yet, the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

[mtbee9]

Your category tag is incorrect for this video.

Should be labeled under - MISINFORMATION not education.

If you wish to argue against evolution thats fine - at least describe it correctly first!

But then if you did you wouldn't have an argument.

Again Major FAIL.

[sweetmikser]

@mtbee9 you're such a cute adorable brat.... And no, you don't explain how the eye supposedly "evolved"... (You're a typical and drone-ish Kool-Aid drinker...) What committed Darwinists have put forth are NOTHING BUT NEUORITIC SPECULATIONS AND WILD CONJECTURES...on how the eye supposedly "evolved". Speculation is NOT "science." Which is why 90% of Darwinism is psuedo-science and myth. Also, the point was admitting that Darwin said there had to be "in-between" stages of ORGANS as well...

[mtbee9]

@sweetmikser "you don't explain how the eye ... "evolved"" Right I didn't explain it . But Biology books do.

Many in-between changes and improvements over time - some of which are still observed in nature. Show how the eye evolved.

I'm sorry but if resorting to name calling is all you have left then it's time to leave you to your blind delusion as I see no hope that you will ever open your mind to reality.

[sweetmikser]

@mtbee9 like I said, I KNOW the speculations already... Not sure why you buy them as proven and absolute fact though. (Well of course it's cuz you WANT to believe it happened that way....against ALLLLL odds...IN MULTIPLE species and animals...lol...."parallel evolution" maybe? lol...)  Anyway, bro....you're missing all the fun on my "Abiogenesis" video. For real... there's been this amazing debate going on between these two guys on it, for days now. "Abiogenesis" vid...Check it out...

[mtbee9]

@sweetmikser "Not sure why you buy them as proven and absolute fact though."

Quite simple the Theory of Evolution is supported by al the evidence and there is NO OTHER theory to explain it. If you have one please enlighten the world you would win a nobel prize!

Ah yes Abiogenesis - great subject and another reason why religion is bogus.

[sweetmikser]

@mtbee9 anyway, if you can find it on my uploaded videos list...click the video "'Abiogenesis - see what Darwinists have said..." And look at it...and also check out the comments and discussions that have been going on... And lend your thoughts as to why "Abiogenesis" means that "religion is bogus." (Not understanding that "Abiogenesis" is pure religious faith with ZERO proof for it anywhere, in or out of any lab on earth...includind "Miller-Urey"...) But yeah, check out the fun there...

[mtbee9]

@sweetmikser "Abiogenesis" is pure religious faith.

Not at all - and if you're not religious why make such a statement!

Abiogenesis is about working out how life began on Earth. Nothing religious about it.

You sure don't have a good idea about what is religion and what is science.

Claiming Evolution is a religion is a typical ID'er trick to confuse others. So i'm guessing that's what you are.

Anyway enjoy your delusion.

[sweetmikser]

@mtbee9 that's an interesting comment...but as I said...BRING IT TO THE "ABIOGENESIS" VIDEO please.... You'll like what you see (in a sense anyway)... Interesting video (a litlte over 2 minutes long...) and very interesting comments going on. I posted it on this page...so you can click it.

[pixelrow]

@mtbee9 - neither do you seem to know much science or religion either.

[mtbee9]

There are plenty of transitional forms for those willing to examine the evidence.

And of course I don't mean Crocoducks and other half and half animals. You just show your ignorance and lack of understanding of Evolution be saying such things.

Try making a video that argues with what evolution actually says and not some made up fiction. LOL

[uru39]

what's with the creepy music.....

You also didn't end quote.....

[sweetmikser]

@uru39 end what quote?

[uru39]

what's with the creepy music.....

[sweetmikser]

@uru39 in many ways, it's a creepy subject... And a matter of creepy contention and debate.  Also, DEAD FOSSILS ARE KIND OF "CREEPY". Also, in a way, it's SCARY...that the Cambrian system kinda proves or at least implies direct Creation. And it's scary how committed Darwinists and Atheists SIMPLY DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SCARY DATA...on this matter.

[BigLundi]

Also, might I add, your picture of the Cambiran Explosion is completely erroneous, the only creatures that appeared as a result of that were marine animalia, your picture includes many land animals that didn't appear in the fossil record until much later.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi I didn't create the picture. Also it was NOT necessarily "all" in the Cambrian that were "marine animals". MOST were in the water, but not all. Some had legs like Hallucigenia...that stood on seven pairs of tall legs. Its long, tube-shaped body had two rows of tall spikes along its back. Also, some of the small beetles may have been walking around on land, mainly on beaches when the tide had gone out. But, cute bro, none of that really matters that much. Point is they SUDDENLY appear.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser The insects you mentioned lived primarily in the water, so they're still marine animalia. The fact that they had legs didn't really matter, besides the Hallucigenia is said to have walked on perhaps both its legs and its spines.

And nope, they didn't 'suddenly' appear. They appeared over a course of millions of years. That's not 'suddenly'.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi well then you disagree with some Darwinists over the years, cuz "suddenly" was a term THEY also used. No kidding that it's somewhat relative in a way. But it WAS sudden, in that THERE ARE NO FORMS TO EXPLAIN ALL THAT IN THE PREEEE-CAMBRIAN. Did any of the solid points in this very video even penetrate or register?  Or is your brain so polluted by Darwinian dogma, that you can't see, hear, or think straight? It was "sudden". Accept it, and get over it already.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser When they used the word 'sudden;y' they were referring geologically. The Cambrian's BEGINNING spanned over 6 million years. Geometrically, this isn't a long time in the grand scheme of 4.5 billion years, but relatively, it is a very long time. Also, the reason life was able to become so complex so quick was the introduction of oxygen in the atmosphere, a gas that, up until that point, was either nonexistent or extremely scarce.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser Let me try and put this into perspective. You asking for a crocoduck is the same level of rediculousness as me asking to be able to place god in a test tube for study. Get it?

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser You're looking for in between fossils that cross families, and evolution doesn't promote that level of radical transformation, it never has, and it never will. Please show me a quot by darwin where he states he's looking for a transitional species between entiere FAMILIES of animals?

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser There ARE in-between stages, but your search for a very particular KIND of in between stage like a crocoduck will remain frutiless, so long as evolution is true. If you hear that scientists don't define a transtional form to include a crocoduck, and they aren't looking for something like that, then why wold you attempt to introduce it as some sort of evidence against evolution that it hasn't found what it's not looking for? It's easy.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi OMG, but that's disingenuous and also kinda contradicts your statement about "Darwin being wrong". Darwiniists AT LEAST AT ONE TIME...WERE...looking for that TYPE of thing. "Gradations" remember? They STOPPED looking for that (or didn't put much hope anymore for that kinda thing) NOT because that would somehow "disprove" evolution (remember, "in-between stages" of reptiles to birds and mammals) but cuz after a while they saw THEY COULD NOT BE FOUND. So THEY changed the goal post.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser Firstly, I don't believe they were ever looking for a family to family transitional fossil, ever. Secondly, even if they used to, they acknowledge that such a search would be stupid now, not because evolution is false, but because evolution wouldn't allow for something so incredibly drastic to occur to an entire species. In order for evolution to occur, it must be slow, and must occur in entire species, there can't be one major jump in the morphological structure of a creature.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi you're confusing, "wouldn't allow for something so incredibly drastic"? Maybe you're misunderstanding. I'm not saying that one entire major group would ALL OF A SUDDEN become another major group...but that there would have to be MANY MANY MANY MANY IN-BETWEEN STAGES AND FORMS AND ANIMALS to cross that bridge, to even GET THERE. You talk about "drastic"? What the hell do you call reptile to bird then? And supposed "fish-ancestry" that all humans presumably have, according to Darwinism?

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser You get a reptile to a bird with little, small steps. Perhaps they begin to have a smaller snout, or their bone becomes harder, or their forelimbs change places, and begin to be in the same place as wings on birds. And besides, I've already shown how amphibians came from fish with fossils, would you like me to ship how amphibians got even furthur? Again, a crocoduck would be a DRASTIC change in the morphology that evolution would not allow for. The mutations have to be small.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi that's the POINT...those "little small steps" need to be there and need to be PLENTIFUL AND CLEAR...in and OUT of the fossil record. And THAT'S what's horrrendously MISSING. We simply do not see all these "gradations" and "in-between stages", of development, partial wings, spines (see my "12 Questions for Darwinists" video some time, about the problematic differences between reptiles and birds/mammals, that are unexplainable), stiffeners, lungs, AS WELL as in-between type animals...

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser No, they aren't missing. Go back to my fossils that I gave you.

What you're asking for is the very minute fossils that show the in between of scales and feathers(archeoptryx) and the in betweens of every single little detail of animals we know today. While we have plenty of in betweens, it is very true that the fossil record is vastly incomplete. Thsi isnb't a bad thing thoguh, and it doesn't count against evolution at all. We've found a LOT of fossils that confirm evolution.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi yeah, again, the pathetic desperate meager nonsense touted to support the speculative myth. What's "MISSING" is what I said...the copious, true, unambiguous, clear, and plentiful in-between steps, gradations, links, and transitional forms, and limbs, and organs, and animals, IF Darwinian theory and "super macro" evolution actually genuinly took place...and if there's no God, no Creator, no Outside Intelligence. Like you can't get an eagle if no real copious links before it truly exist.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser *sigh* Ok, let's try this. Do you believe in micro evolution?

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi stop it...the sighing is mine. And don't use that "micro evolution" stuff on me. Because then you can get to say "but macro evolution (or super macro) is just lots of micro that lead to bigger changes over time" arf arf. I know the gas...and I know more than what you THINK that I know...and dealt with. I believe in WHAT'S CALLED "micro evolution", though I do not generally use that term. I believe in adaptations, natural selection, variations, modifications, WITHIN SPECIES AND GROUPS.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser Ah, so you don't believe in speciation?

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi huh? Do I have to spell everything out? Yes, I do...no kidding. It's pathetic when people say "there's proof for macro evolution, we have new frog species" (never mind that they're still frogs) or "we have these new mosquito species" (who cares though if they're still "mosquitoes") Sure there are even some instances of what's called "speciation" in a way. I don't disbelieve that. STRAW-MEN...and evasions. And typical Darwinist lunatic BAIT-AND-SWITCHES....

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser Straw men are arguments against, that's what you're doign when you ask for fossils nobody's looking for. It's not evasions, we're literally showing you exampels of new species being evolved, and you stil lsay, "Pft, but it's stil la frog." or "Pfft, but it's still a bird." Well NO DUH. To ask for anything more is unreasonable.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi no, to ask for anything more than those straw-men examples that were NEVER the "goal-post" for Creationists (so Darwinists lie or are just plain ignorant when they say "Creationists move the goal-post" as "E.Coli" and "new frog species" were NEVER argued against, or what were asked for) is simply to ask for what Darwin himself said should theoretically be there. And since it canNOT be duplicated in any lab (real true "evolution", not just local adaptations) then it's just CONJECTURE.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser Darwin's predictions? Oh we have plenty of those. But his predictions that our finding of transitional fossils would close the gap in the fossil record were WAY off. In fact, every fossil we find simply extends the amount of gaps we have. You gave a picture of an incomplete bridge. Well, it's incomplete, but it's also traversable. The bridge might not have its sides, or is missing a whole lot of bricks, but you can get over it.

[BigLundi]

Also, the Cambiran Explosion? It took place over a course of millions upon millions of years...not really a 'burst of life'. And the only life that it gave was marine animalia. Also, nothing about evolution says that, over time, life forms will necessarily change.

[BigLundi]

The fact is, Darwin was wrong in wanting there to be a closing of the gaps in the fossil record. Every time we find more transitional forms, we then open up a new gap between that transitional form and what it eventually led to, and again when we find another. The incompleteness of the fossil record was actually predicted by biologists after Darwin. The incomplete fossil record does nothing, at all, to discredit evolution.

[BigLundi]

Actually, many darwinists say that DNA is the strongest evidence of the theory.

hahaha, Fishibian, Amphitile, Rept-bird.

Are you really going all crocoduck on our asses?

You want transitional fossils?" I'll list a few off for you.

Small fish to bigger fish - Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Protospinax

jawless fish to bony fish - Palaeoniscoids, Canobius, Aeduella, Oreochima

Bony fish to amphibians - Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Elpistostege

Need I go on?

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi I said "ONE of the strongest proofs" they say. Not necessarily "THE" strongest. As far as your convenient and typical examples (and funny names)...you act like I don't know those concoctions and manipulations already. Anyone can make a pre-arranged chart, and stcik things in there, and claim "transitional forms" neurotically. Also, CONFUSING "extinction" with evolution. Also, I said in the video...REAL TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Not ambiguous old garbage, kid. That are completely formed.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser Ah, ok, so even if I give you a gigantic list of transitional forms, you'll just say they're made up and concocted. Whatever.

You obviously don't know what a 'transitional form' even is, if you're asking for things along the lines of a fucking crocoduck, which, ironically, would DISprove evolution. Also, have you never heard of punctuated equilibrium? Extinction is a cause of evolution.

Prove the fossils I showed you to not be transitional before oyu simply dismiss them.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi I know the CONVENIENT AND LAUGHABLE AND DESPERATE labeling that Darwinists do to try to be able to claim "aha, see, we have transitional forms" arf arf. I know THAT, kid. (See my "Atheist Fails" video...Part One) You asked me just now "have you never heard of punctuated equilibrium?"??? That shows that you did NOT see this whole video through. Why not?  I mention the myth of "punctuated equilibrium" and Gould's piteous attempt to explain the gaps IN THIS VIDEO ITSELF.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser So you just dismiss punctuated equilibrium. I recall seeing the exact same thing in a creationist propaganda film. It's not a myth, it's demonstrated to happen. As for 'fish remain fish' bullshit, apparently you just out and ignored my fish to amphibians transitionals, so I'll list them again. Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Elpistostege.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi I did not ignore it, in fact I said "MOST" (there you go not listening again) of what you listed was WITHIN a major group anyway, and not apart from it. Saying "most" indicated that I did NOT "ignore" your pathetic "fish to amphibian" desperate and drone-ish manipulation. Darwinist hallucinations and conjectures are NOT "proof" or "science". But just myth and SPECULATION...touted as "transitional" and "science" by Darwinist tards. Now listen...you did NOT see this whole video. Why?

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser It's not a desperation. I provided transitional fossils from fish to amphibians, and you did not debunk them. So you lose.

I didn't watch the entirety of your video because I tend to stop the video every time it says something wrong, which you do a LOT.

If YOU want to define transitional forms as being something like that of a 'crocoduck' then fine, but no 'evolutionist' does that.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi ok, I understand...but do try to see the whole video through. As far as why no evolutionist defines a "transtional form" as something like a "crocoduck" (reptile-bird, in other words) is because IT WOULD BE TOO HARD TO DO SO, AND TO FIND A REAL ONE LIKE THAT...and he would LOSE big time. So it's much easier to either manipulate meager scattered fossils, or tout ANY LAUGHABLE VAGUE JUNK as a "transitional form". But REAL "transitional forms" are out of the question CUZ THEY DON'T EXIST.

[BigLundi]

@sweetmikser No, no evolutionist defines a transitional form to be liek that of a corcoduck because a corcoduck would disprove evolution.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi yeah, I heard that cop-out before. And it's convenient (and inconsistent) and confusing with ever-revising Darwinists about what should be showing and what supposedly happened. (sighs...) Like you saying "Darwin was wrong" to expect such and such. LOL...... The point is that there should be some IN-BETWEEN stages and partially developed bones, wings, and ORGANS....copiously seen through the record. THATS' what was predicted by Darwinian theory. And it JUST AINT THERE.

[mtbee9]

@sweetmikser "THATS' what was predicted by Darwinian theory"

Nope sorry Darwin theory does not suppose any in-between organs. All organs were fully functional and changed gradually otherwise animals would not have survived. Legs for example got shorter or longer GRADUALLY not in a single stage.

Again you show a lack of understanding of the basic concepts of evolution.

[sweetmikser]

@mtbee9 uh, actually yes it does...logically, and in Darwin's own words in his books. If there were no "in-between stages of organs" then how uh do you suppose the new organs even got there according to Darwinian EVOLUTIONARY theory...of Darwinian "gradations"?? New functioning organs in new species and families and major groups just magically appeared? Avian lungs just BURST into new species? Darwin was not a GOULD-ITE...was he? Darwin believed in gradualism, though (lol) fossils WERE LACKING.

[sweetmikser]

@mtbee9 (2nd) this here is just ONE OF A NUMBER of things Darwin himself said (in his weak and vapid book "Origin of Species"...where he did nothing but make wild and neurotic ASSUMPTIONS, LEAPS, AND SPECULATIONS...as well as erecting STRAW-MEN, and confusing variations within kinds and groups for "evolution"...etc)

"GRADATIONS OF STRUCTURE, with each stage beneficial to a changing species, will be favoured only under certain peculiar conditions." (Origin of Species, Chapter 8, 6th Edition)

[mtbee9]

@sweetmikser "GRADATIONS OF STRUCTURE, with each stage beneficial to a changing species, will be favoured only under certain peculiar conditions"

Correct - nothing wrong with that statement. Why do you have a problem with it?

[sweetmikser]

@mtbee9 (3rd) and if you read further in Darwin's "Origins" book...he was referring not just to limbs but organs as well...(eyes and lungs etc)...but even with things like legs YOU DON'T SEE "GRADATIONS" and all the "in-between stages" that should theoretically be true, if Darwin was right (which he obviously wasn't). Also, what you said about "fully functional organs" "otherwise would not have survived"...THANKS FOR MAKING THE CREATIONIST CASE. There HAD to be "in-betweens" if Darwin was right.

[mtbee9]

@sweetmikser "but organs as well ... eyes" Yes the eye is a good case and Darwin himself could not fathom how the eye evolved. Today we can show this and explain how the eye evolved. Not just once but many times as there are many kinds of eyes in the animal kingdom.

So I have NOT made the creationist case - which says things magically appeared from nothing - who would believe that!

You have said nothing to refute Darwins theory - just misrepresent it.

MAJOR FAIL.

[sweetmikser]

@BigLundi also, I notice that you don't listen (or read) that carefully. I said (as another point) BETWEEN MAJOR GROUPS. Most of the old crap (names you got from Darwinist websites I see) are WITHIN the same "major" group of "fish". Which is where Atheists fall over themselves, over the word "kind"...not understanding anything. Empirical facts show that no matter how many adaptations, variations, "mutations", modifications, or generations...

cats remain cats

birds remain birds

fish remain fish