The Cambrian Explosion (Remastered)
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (205)
-
"No scientist thinks that those lizards had a random mutation selected for in only thirty years that created the cecal valve which is also present in other lizards. "
They do however acknowledge that evolution by Natural selection is responsible for the cecal valves. "Random mutation" is ambiguous.
"However it is suspected that the DNA for the cecal valve was present in the Parent P"
If that is or ever was suspected then it should be pointed out that such a suspicion is disproved
-
"You are suggesting that in three or four generations, Italian wall lizards had a random genetic mutation that created an entirely new organ and it permeated the population AND just happens to match exactly the cecal valves in other lizards."
Well, take out "three or four generations" and replace " had a random genetic mutation" with "had developmental mutations selected for" and I agree witht he fundamental statement there. As do scientists.
...What are YOU suggesting?
-
"Italian wall lizards had a random genetic mutation that created an entirely new organ and it permeated the population AND just happens to match exactly the cecal valves in other lizards"
yep. Real scientists are attributing this to the dynamic of evolution. Ignoring the fact that "evolutionists" are real scientists. What scientist has rebuked it?
If "unicellular colonies" are not multicellular organisms, which are sponges? Is a Portugeuse man O' War an organism or a colony?
-
"Which new structure have you observed being created by evolution?"
One of the most famous examples are cecal valves for a new structure forming within a human generation
That's an example on the macro scale, some of the best real time examples are in microorganisms such as new metabolism capabilities as well as some drastic changes such as a change from unicellularity to multicellularity (Boraas 1998)
Indeed far more than we have seen of structures being created by a magical being
-
@mejc2 "Primitive? One of them was over two meters long."
Primitiveness and size are two different things. Also correct me in stating the primtive tetrapod that left these tracks is not represented by any species today just as modern tetrapods have no devonion reps. "tracks were found in a marine environment which shoots the shit out of the fresh water Tiktaalik story"
How do you figure?
"your an evolutionist" (sic)
as were the reporters of the tracks
-
"there are limits and no one has ever been able to pass them."
Can you name any such limit that if theoretically passed would not also breaks the laws of evolutionary theory?
A more accurate statement is that if there are limits of relation between the species of the planet, nobody has ever detected nor outlined then. Instead there is a full and consistent phylogenetic tree of relationship rather that several seperate and unincorperable trees that creationism demands
@mejc2 "An undiscovered animal made human footprints."
But they aren't human footprints. They are homonid footprints that look less human than homo sapiens but more human than what we expect from A. afarensis.
Again you are giving a warped anthology of misinformation. You are giving creationist misrepresentations of facts and not the facts themselves
ProcInc 1 year ago 5
@mejc2 "He will claim they are human and even tell you why."
No paleontologist would say they came from a modern human. They are too small and have a shape irrelgular to the outer limits of that of hodern humans.
No Paleontologist has said they're human. Neither Tuttle (1990) nor Foley (2004) the Paleontologists who analysed them determined that.
Nobody has proposed the explanation you suggested
ProcInc 1 year ago 3