Just Accidental?

[Subduction Zone]

What great lengths you’re willing to go to try and preserve your ego.
First, a classic example of an ad hominem on 2 people. (For no reason.)
Second, demeaning another as beneath you and unworthy just because they disagree with you.
Third, trying to grasp at straws using a false appeal to authority example.
Fourth, trying to instill your own control and rules and authority over others. Who are you?

Here are the references cited in the link which were deferred to. Once again, everything you’ve said has had zero relevance to anything.
References Cited:
[1.] James Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla(University of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 35.
[2.] Charles Marshall, “Explaining the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ of Animals,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34 (2006):355-384.
[3.] Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (W. H. Freeman, 1992), p. 36.
[4.] Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary explosions and the phylogenetic fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 (April, 1998): 151-156.
[5.] Andrew H. Knoll, and Sean B. Carroll, “Early animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology,” Science, 284 (June 25, 1999): 2129-2136 (internal citations omitted).
[6.] Vicki Pearse, John Pearse, Mildred Buchsbaum, and Ralph Buchsbaum. Living Invertebrates (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1987), , p. 764.
[7.] James W. Valentine, D. Jablonski, Doug H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, 126 (1999): 851-859 (internal citations omitted).
[8.] Richard Fortey, “Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?,” Science, 293 (July 20, 2001): 438-439 (emphases added).
[9.] Maximilian J. Telford, Sarah J. Bourlat, Andrew Economou, Daniel Papillon and Omar Rota-Stabelli, “The evolution of the Ecdysozoa,” Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363 (2008): 1529-1537.
[10.] This is another good example where the molecular data conflicts with morphological data. As Graham Budd explains, if arthropods are distantly related to annelids, “then the striking resemblance of such arthropod systems to (for example) those of annelids would be a convergence, which may be considered by some to be unlikely.” See Graham E. Budd, “Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The Evidence from the Cambrian Fauna,” Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 240 (2001): 265-279 (internal citations omitted). Or as another paper put it, the molecular data imply “the closest relatives of panarthropods are not segmented, coelomate animals like annelids, but rather are nonsegmented, mostly acoelomateworms with terminal mouth.” Gregory D. Edgecombe, “Palaeontological and Molecular Evidence Linking Arthropods, Onychophorans, and other Ecdysozoa,” Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:178-190. Since arthropods are segmented and coelomate animals, this finding is most surprising.
[11.] Jianni Liu, Degan Shu, Jian Han, Zhifei Zhang, Xingliang Zhang, “Origin, diversification, and relationships of Cambrian lobopods,” Gondwana Research, 14 (2008): 277-283.
[12.] Graham E. Budd, “Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The Evidence from the Cambrian Fauna,” Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 240 (2001): 265-279.
[13.] Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (2000):27-32 (internal citations removed).
[14.] James W. Valentine, David Jablonski and Douglas H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion,” Development, 126 (1999): 851-859.
[15.] Philippe Janvier, “Catching the first fish,” Nature, 402 (November 4, 1999): 21-22 (emphasis added).
[16.] Gregory A. Wray, Jeffrey S. Levinton, Leo H. Shapiro, “Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian Divergences Among Metazoan Phyla,” Science, 274:568-573 (October 25, 1996) (internal citations removed) (emphases added.)
[17.] Douglas H. Erwin, Marc Laflamme, Sarah M. Tweedt, Erik A. Sperling, Davide Pisani, Kevin J. Peterson, “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” Science, 334 (November 25, 2011): 1091-1097 (internal citations removed) (emphases added).
[18.] Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, 31 (1009): 736-747 (internal citations removed) (emphasis added).
[19.] Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien, “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang,” Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003).
[20.] E�rs Szathm�ry, “When the means do not justify the end, Book review of Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species by Jeffrey H. Schwartz,” Nature, 399 (June 24, 1999): 745-746.
[21.] Ibid.
[22.] See Hopi E. Hoekstra and Jerry A. Coyne, “The Locus of Evolution: Evo Devo and the Genetics of Adaptation,” Evolution, 61-5 (2007): 995-1016.
[23.] See for example, Benjamin Prud’homme, Nicolas Gompel, and Sean B. Carroll, “Emerging principles of regulatory evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104 (May 15, 2007): 8605-8612.
[24.] Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, 31 (1009): 736-747 (internal citations removed).
[25.] Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), 408-409.
[26.] Richard M. Bateman, Peter R. Crane, William A. DiMichele, Paul R. Kenrick, Nick P. Rowe, Thomas Speck, and William E. Stein, “Early Evolution of Land Plants: Phylogeny, Physiology, and Ecology of the Primary Terrestrial Radiation,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29 (1998): 263-292.
[27.] See Stefanie De Bodt, Steven Maere, and Yves Van de Peer, “Genome duplication and the origin of angiosperms,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20 (2005): 591-597. (“Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record… with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80-90 million years before their appearance”).
[28.] Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), 65.
[29.] See Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 (April, 1998): 151-156; Frank B. Gill, Ornithology, 3rd ed. (New York: W.H. Freeman, 2007), 42.
[30.] See “New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution,” University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000).

So what? Creationists apologists are quite often experts at quote mining. That is much harder to do in an internet debate because a link to the original source can always be required. It does not matter what sources are used if he abused them.

You used a false appeal to authority and were caught at it. You then began a series of personal attacks to detract from your error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

References Cited:
[1.] James Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla(University of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 35.
[2.] Charles Marshall, “Explaining the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ of Animals,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34 (2006):355-384.
[3.] Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (W. H. Freeman, 1992), p. 36.
[4.] Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary explosions and the phylogenetic fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 (April, 1998): 151-156.
[5.] Andrew H. Knoll, and Sean B. Carroll, “Early animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology,” Science, 284 (June 25, 1999): 2129-2136 (internal citations omitted).
[6.] Vicki Pearse, John Pearse, Mildred Buchsbaum, and Ralph Buchsbaum. Living Invertebrates (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1987), , p. 764.
[7.] James W. Valentine, D. Jablonski, Doug H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion,” Development, 126 (1999): 851-859 (internal citations omitted).
[8.] Richard Fortey, “Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?,” Science, 293 (July 20, 2001): 438-439 (emphases added).
[9.] Maximilian J. Telford, Sarah J. Bourlat, Andrew Economou, Daniel Papillon and Omar Rota-Stabelli, “The evolution of the Ecdysozoa,” Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363 (2008): 1529-1537.
[10.] This is another good example where the molecular data conflicts with morphological data. As Graham Budd explains, if arthropods are distantly related to annelids, “then the striking resemblance of such arthropod systems to (for example) those of annelids would be a convergence, which may be considered by some to be unlikely.” See Graham E. Budd, “Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The Evidence from the Cambrian Fauna,” Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 240 (2001): 265-279 (internal citations omitted). Or as another paper put it, the molecular data imply “the closest relatives of panarthropods are not segmented, coelomate animals like annelids, but rather are nonsegmented, mostly acoelomateworms with terminal mouth.” Gregory D. Edgecombe, “Palaeontological and Molecular Evidence Linking Arthropods, Onychophorans, and other Ecdysozoa,” Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:178-190. Since arthropods are segmented and coelomate animals, this finding is most surprising.
[11.] Jianni Liu, Degan Shu, Jian Han, Zhifei Zhang, Xingliang Zhang, “Origin, diversification, and relationships of Cambrian lobopods,” Gondwana Research, 14 (2008): 277-283.
[12.] Graham E. Budd, “Tardigrades as ‘Stem-Group Arthropods’: The Evidence from the Cambrian Fauna,” Zoologischer Anzeiger: A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 240 (2001): 265-279.
[13.] Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (2000):27-32 (internal citations removed).
[14.] James W. Valentine, David Jablonski and Douglas H. Erwin, “Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion,” Development, 126 (1999): 851-859.
[15.] Philippe Janvier, “Catching the first fish,” Nature, 402 (November 4, 1999): 21-22 (emphasis added).
[16.] Gregory A. Wray, Jeffrey S. Levinton, Leo H. Shapiro, “Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian Divergences Among Metazoan Phyla,” Science, 274:568-573 (October 25, 1996) (internal citations removed) (emphases added.)
[17.] Douglas H. Erwin, Marc Laflamme, Sarah M. Tweedt, Erik A. Sperling, Davide Pisani, Kevin J. Peterson, “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” Science, 334 (November 25, 2011): 1091-1097 (internal citations removed) (emphases added).
[18.] Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, 31 (1009): 736-747 (internal citations removed) (emphasis added).
[19.] Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien, “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang,” Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003).
[20.] E�rs Szathm�ry, “When the means do not justify the end, Book review of Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species by Jeffrey H. Schwartz,” Nature, 399 (June 24, 1999): 745-746.
[21.] Ibid.
[22.] See Hopi E. Hoekstra and Jerry A. Coyne, “The Locus of Evolution: Evo Devo and the Genetics of Adaptation,” Evolution, 61-5 (2007): 995-1016.
[23.] See for example, Benjamin Prud’homme, Nicolas Gompel, and Sean B. Carroll, “Emerging principles of regulatory evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104 (May 15, 2007): 8605-8612.
[24.] Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, 31 (1009): 736-747 (internal citations removed).
[25.] Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), 408-409.
[26.] Richard M. Bateman, Peter R. Crane, William A. DiMichele, Paul R. Kenrick, Nick P. Rowe, Thomas Speck, and William E. Stein, “Early Evolution of Land Plants: Phylogeny, Physiology, and Ecology of the Primary Terrestrial Radiation,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29 (1998): 263-292.
[27.] See Stefanie De Bodt, Steven Maere, and Yves Van de Peer, “Genome duplication and the origin of angiosperms,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20 (2005): 591-597. (“Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record… with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80-90 million years before their appearance”).
[28.] Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), 65.
[29.] See Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 (April, 1998): 151-156; Frank B. Gill, Ornithology, 3rd ed. (New York: W.H. Freeman, 2007), 42.
[30.] See “New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution,” University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000).

I clicked on one of the links and found that Luskin lied rather unabashedly. He actually used the term "ID theory". We all know that there is no "ID theory" there is not even an ID hypothesis. ID is merely a series of ad hoc arguments at best. Of course I could be shown to be wrong. Some creationist may come up with a falsifiable hypothesis of ID, but until then they have nothing.

And just because one has a hypothesis does not mean that one has a theory. A hypothesis has to "graduate" to be a theory. It needs to undergo massive testing by multiple sources before that can be claimed.

The sad thing is that Luskin has to lie by quote mining. He can't find any valid work by those in his own field. Creationists are afraid of peer review, the minimal standard for getting new ideas accepted, because their ideas are so easily shot down.

In the internet age quotes out of context of a source that is unlinked are worthless in a debate. And it appears that is all that Luskin has.are quote mines.

Here is how it is done. When quoting someone that disagrees with you one must link that persons article. Luskin does not do this:

Casey Luskin's Top Ten Misunderstandings of Biology • Smilodon's Retreat

The author's opinion of Luskin appears to be rather similar to mine:

"What’s really sad is that there is nothing new in this list that hasn’t been debunked for decades. My own writings on these subjects may be about recent research, but these ideas have been a part of evolutionary from almost the beginning. All of the issues have been worked out and dealt with long ago. We know the fossil record isn’t perfect, doesn’t mean it’s useless.

Now, let me turn the tables Casey… if you dare (and we both know you don’t). Why don’t write a detailed explanation, with evidence, for how ID answers these questions better than science does.

Please tell us Casey, how the animals from Noah’s Ark got all over the world and from all over the world to the ark. Why don’t you tell us how ID predicts what we should expect from convergent evolution. Or how life came to be in the first place.

I won’t hold my breath."

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean, you can’t figure this out? Are you serious?

They may be advocating an incorrect understanding of Genesis 1, but at least they believe in the Bible, and in its Author as our God and Creator.

When we as individual theists look at the myriads of species in the animal and plant kingdoms (or any of the six), observe the symbiosis between and the inherent instinct of living organisms, and think about its DNA that contains a dual-language information system detected within each cell structure...we marvel at the design, and the intelligent Designer who programmed and installed the extremely complex information in each living cell!
Because we accurately conclude that information, which creates purpose, order and function, always has an intelligence behind it! — Hebrews 4:5

Evolution — CD evolution, that is — claims these organisms aren’t really designed, not by an Intelligent Source; it all appeared by a fortunate series of mindless, undirected processes.

CD therefore tries to remove Jehovah God and His Word completely out of the picture!

But you’re right, to a point....false religious teachings, supposedly based on the Bible, can turn thinking people away, too. Like hellfire. (Which makes God out to be a monster.) And the Trinity “mystery” (Who wants to worship a God you can’t understand?) I’ve come to learn that the Bible doesn’t teach those things.

And hypocrisy among Christendom’s / all religions’ leaders has the same effect.

I may have asked you this, but can’t remember: do you deny that paranormal activity exists? Do you think it’s all (spirit mediums, ouija board experiences) fake?

From my understanding no "paranormal" activities hold up under scrutiny. Yes, it appears that all of it is fake.

That is why Randi's Million Dollar Challenge lasted so long. He kept extending the deadline but no one ever came even close. He did finally kill the deal. He is getting very old and the money has better uses than sitting in a trust account.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You mean, you can’t figure this out? Are you serious?

They may be advocating an incorrect understanding of Genesis 1, but at least they believe in the Bible, and in its Author as our God and Creator.

When we as individual theists look at the myriads of species in the animal and plant kingdoms (or any of the six), observe the symbiosis between and the inherent instinct of living organisms, and think about its DNA that contains a dual-language information system detected within each cell structure...we marvel at the design, and the intelligent Designer who programmed and installed the extremely complex information in each living cell!
Because we accurately conclude that information, which creates purpose, order and function, always comes from an intelligent source! — Hebrews 4:5

Define "information" as it pertains to biological systems.

Evolution — CD evolution, that is — claims these organisms aren’t really designed, not by an Intelligent Source; it all appeared by a fortunate series of mindless, undirected processes.

CD therefore tries to remove Jehovah God and His Word completely out of the picture!

False.

While it is true that common descent means that an intelligent creator is no longer a required explanation, it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of one. Common descent could be God's preferred method of design. It does seem far more elegant when you think of it that way, actually - rather than construct each and every species, create a single population and allow it to grow and spread into numerous forms according to your will in a way that, to the organisms themselves, appears completely in line with the natural world they are a part of.

That's the magic of evoking an all-powerful deity as an explanation - it can literally do anything it wants any way it wants, so no method necessarily eliminates their input, just renders their input less overt and more subtle. If nature is an expression of God's will, then so is common descent. Conflict only arises if you have determined "God MUST have done it this EXACT way or no God could have done it at all!", which is obviously a very restrictive and narrow view to take of a supposedly omnipotent and all-knowing being. When you remove that assumption and instead employ the reasoning "God created life, but I do not necessarily know the exact method or expression of this creation", objections to evolution quickly fall away. In other words, when you remember that God is God, and can do things in whatever way they want, you lose your ability to call evolution a God-removing process.

It always strikes me as odd when theists say that evolution "removes God" from creation. It's almost as if they don't actually believe in an omnipotent being, they just desperately want to believe in a simplified God that would create things the way that they - they believers - would do, rather than by a complex, organic system they don't understand, because they ultimately only see God having worth if they are a pure reflection of themselves. It comes across to me as ultimately narcissistic: "God created life, but HAD to have done so in a way that is reasonable and understandable to ME, otherwise they couldn't possibly have done it, because God's abilities are limited purely to MY understanding of them!"

EDIT: I would like to add something. I love science, especially astronomy and the Earth sciences, like geology, I consider myself an advocate of accurate science, which to me, doesn’t include descent with modification (CD).

Then you're just as bad as the Christians you chastise for misrepresentation - in fact, perhaps worse. You can't "pick and choose" your facts and determine that the ideas you don't like or find inconvenient to be "not accurate science". If you truly loved science, you would accept its conclusions regardless of your preconceptions or desires.

 

[Deeje]

If you truly loved science, you would accept its conclusions regardless of your preconceptions or desires.

You mean like evolutionists do?

Priceless....thanks for confirming what we already knew......don't let the truth get in the way now, will you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You mean like evolutionists do?

Priceless....thanks for confirming what we already knew......don't let the truth get in the way now, will you?

Evolution is accepted because of the facts supporting it - hence why you've resorted to baseless personal attacks rather than debating the facts when your logic was demonstrated to be so poor.

Also, what "preconception" leads me to accept evolution, exactly?

 

[Jose Fly]

Going deeper, this reasoning is also flawed. You deliberately point to one mechanism(natural selection) for biological life(OTOH) and then indirectly state as fact that human intelligence/engineering/design is not the same result of the same mechanism.(natural selection.)

Well, I suppose if you want to get Guy to agree that human intelligence is the result of natural selection, go right ahead.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you’ve read the sources from the link, you would have seen them, as well as the addressing just about all of the specimens that you spoke about.

No, not at all. The closest was Luskin's mention of lobopods in general, but as far as the specific specimens I cited....nope.

If you’re actually interested in having a discussion, quote which sources you disagree with and why.

First of all, it would be Casey Luskin (the source you cited). He's a lawyer with absolutely no education, training, or experience in paleontology, let alone Cambrian paleontology.

And he's a documented liar and charlatan.

PZ Myers: Casey Luskin caught quote mining

Luskin wrote

In January, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on this debate, declaring that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,“1 because neo-Darwinism is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter”2 it. As an undergraduate and graduate student taking multiple courses covering evolutionary biology at the University of California San Diego, that is what I was told as well. My science courses rarely, if ever, allowed students to seriously entertain the possibility that Darwin’s theory might be fundamentally flawed.
​

Now the context:

The first part of the quote is from page 52, near the end of the book. Here it is in context:

[1] There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwarranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes.
​

Where do you think we’ll find the second half of his quote? Page 53, maybe? Page 54? No. You’ll have to thumb backwards through the book, to a place near the beginning: page 16.​

I still maintain that it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[Jose Fly]

They may be advocating an incorrect understanding of Genesis 1, but at least they believe in the Bible, and in its Author as our God and Creator.

According to most YECs I've ever interacted with, you're just as hell-bound as any "evolutionist". After all, according to them you don't take God at his word when He says He created everything in 6 days, and you believe there was death before the first sin, which makes Jesus' sacrifice meaningless.

CD therefore tries to remove Jehovah God and His Word completely out of the picture!

So help me out here.....exactly what sort of ID creationism do you believe in? Is it the Michael Behe version where all life (humans included) shares a common ancestry, but some "designer" just stepped in now and then?

But you’re right, to a point....false religious teachings, supposedly based on the Bible, can turn thinking people away, too. Like hellfire. (Which makes God out to be a monster.) And the Trinity “mystery” (Who wants to worship a God you can’t understand?) I’ve come to learn that the Bible doesn’t teach those things.

The reason I ask is that I would think the greater threat to your faith would be from those claiming to be in that faith, but promoting "false teachings".

I may have asked you this, but can’t remember: do you deny that paranormal activity exists? Do you think it’s all (spirit mediums, ouija board experiences) fake?

I prefer to keep my religious views to myself in these debates.

EDIT

: I would like to add something. I love science, especially astronomy and the Earth sciences, like geology, I consider myself an advocate of accurate science, which to me, doesn’t include descent with modification (CD).

So you disagree with @Deeje when she says that science is nothing but a giant "fraud factory" and is responsible for much of our woes?

 

[Sapiens]

It amazes that you have managed to make this all about attacking an author rather than focusing on the sources provided that aren’t the authors.

The point is that, as noted by @Subduction Zone and @Jose Fly, Luskin's citations are meaningless, he is notorious as a quote miner and it is impossible to trust anything that he claims other have concluded. Your cutting and pasting Luskin's so called "citation" list is just the internet version of a Gish Gallop.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You yourself positively identified an accurate description of automotive development as being that of the fossil record So if the pattern in the fossil record can be described in identical terms to that of automotive development, was there any other line of evidence that you felt made a compelling argument specifically for Darwinian evolution?

I did (provide other evidence), the last time you set your trap.

Guy Threepwood said: So as we dig into the past, we see a timeline of shared traits, generally increasing complexity, with some gaps, jumps, stasis, some dead ends and even regressions in some cases- what are you claiming this is evidence for?

IANS answered: Along with the genetic evidence, the comparative anatomy / physiology / embryology / biochemistry evidence, the biogeographical evidence, and the fact that we can witness evolution occurring, it's more of the evidence for the correctness of the theory of biological evolution.

• Consilience - agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects.

When all of the evidence coming from multiple, independent lines of research points in the same direction, the likelihood of the conclusions drawn from it is much stronger than any single aspect considered alone.​

You've noted the similarities between the car and fossil strata, but ignored the very significant difference that biological organisms can reproduce with variation and be selected for or against by nature, facts not true in the case of cars. These significant differences allow living things to do on their own what requires engineers to do for cars. Cars can't reproduce themselves and so also do not produce variations of themselves, and are not selected by nature, but rather, by people.

Cars don't succeed or fail the way living things do. They have to be desirable to people: attractive, affordable, safe, good mileage, be long-lived.

Living things have to compete successfully for scarce resources and escape predation. The processes are not really comparable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either."

That's simply incorrect. Here's more, from your link

"1. Did we evolve from monkeys? Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids."

Man is an ape, and apes evolved from monkeys, who evolved from prosimian ancestors.

Furthermore, they've got ape evolution wrong. The last common ancestral apes bifurcated into the line that would produce modern orangutans and all other apes first, currently believed to have occurred about 15.7-21 million years ago (mya). Then this second line bifurcated about 9 mya into the line that would produce gorillas and one that would later bifurcate (5-8 mya) to produce chimps/bonobos and man.

That is indicated indirectly by the taxonomy:

Order: PRIMATES -> Suborder STREPSIRRHINI: non-tarsier prosimians (wet-nosed primates: lemurs, lorises, pottos, galagos)
|
Suborder: HAPLORRHINI (dry-nosed primates): tarsiers and anthropoids -> Infraorder TARSIIFORMES: tarsiers (dry-nosed prosimians)
|
Infraorder: SIMIIFORMES monkeys, apes and man (simians/anthropoids)-> (Taxon/Parvorder PLATYRHINI) NewWorld monkeys
|
Taxon/Parvorder: CATARRHINI : Old World simians/anthropoids (apes and Old World monkeys)-> Superfamily CERCOPITHECOIDEA: Old World monkeys
|
Superfamily HOMINOIDEA ("hominoids") the apes -> lesser apes (Family HYLOBATIDAE) Gibbons Genus Hylobates
|
Family HOMINIDAE ("hominids") great apes -> (Subfamily PONGINAE) Orangutans
|
Subfamily HOMININAE ("hominines") Gorilla, Pan and Homo -> Tribe GORILLINI
|
Tribe HOMININI ("homin..?") Pan (chimps, bonobos) and Homo -> Subtribe PANINA
|
Subtribe HOMININA ("hominins") Homo and Australopithecoids -> Austrlopithecoids (Australopithecus, Ardipithicus, Paranthropus)
|
Genus Homo​

 

[Sapiens]

That's simply incorrect. Here's more, from your link

"1. Did we evolve from monkeys? Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids."

Man is an ape, and apes evolved from monkeys, who evolved from prosimian ancestors.

Furthermore, they've got ape evolution wrong. The last common ancestral apes bifurcated into the line that would produce modern orangutans and all other apes first, currently believed to have occurred about 15.7-21 million years ago (mya). Then this second line bifurcated about 9 mya into the line that would produce gorillas and one that would later bifurcate (5-8 mya) to produce chimps/bonobos and man.

That is indicated indirectly by the taxonomy:

Order: PRIMATES -> Suborder STREPSIRRHINI: non-tarsier prosimians (wet-nosed primates: lemurs, lorises, pottos, galagos)
|
Suborder: HAPLORRHINI (dry-nosed primates): tarsiers and anthropoids -> Infraorder TARSIIFORMES: tarsiers (dry-nosed prosimians)
|
Infraorder: SIMIIFORMES monkeys, apes and man (simians/anthropoids)-> (Taxon/Parvorder PLATYRHINI) NewWorld monkeys
|
Taxon/Parvorder: CATARRHINI : Old World simians/anthropoids (apes and Old World monkeys)-> Superfamily CERCOPITHECOIDEA: Old World monkeys
|
Superfamily HOMINOIDEA ("hominoids") the apes -> lesser apes (Family HYLOBATIDAE) Gibbons Genus Hylobates
|
Family HOMINIDAE ("hominids") great apes -> (Subfamily PONGINAE) Orangutans
|
Subfamily HOMININAE ("hominines") Gorilla, Pan and Homo -> Tribe GORILLINI
|
Tribe HOMININI ("homin..?") Pan (chimps, bonobos) and Homo -> Subtribe PANINA
|
Subtribe HOMININA ("hominins") Homo and Australopithecoids -> Austrlopithecoids (Australopithecus, Ardipithicus, Paranthropus)
|
Genus Homo​

You are quite correct, but is is difficult for creationists or IDers to grasp a taxonomic view and quite impossible for them to understand a cladistic one. Ever tried to get a creationist to explore his or her "inner fish?"

 

[idav]

You mean, you can’t figure this out? Are you serious?

They may be advocating an incorrect understanding of Genesis 1, but at least they believe in the Bible, and in its Author as our God and Creator.

When we as individual theists look at the myriads of species in the animal and plant kingdoms (or any of the six), observe the symbiosis between and the inherent instinct of living organisms, and think about its DNA that contains a dual-language information system detected within each cell structure...we marvel at the design, and the intelligent Designer who programmed and installed the extremely complex information in each living cell!
Because we accurately conclude that information, which creates purpose, order and function, always comes from an intelligent source! — Hebrews 4:5

Evolution — CD evolution, that is — claims these organisms aren’t really designed, not by an Intelligent Source; it all appeared by a fortunate series of mindless, undirected processes.

CD therefore tries to remove Jehovah God and His Word completely out of the picture!

But you’re right, to a point....false religious teachings, supposedly based on the Bible, can turn thinking people away, too. Like hellfire. (Which makes God out to be a monster.) And the Trinity “mystery” (Who wants to worship a God you can’t understand?) I’ve come to learn that the Bible doesn’t teach those things.

And hypocrisy among Christendom’s / all religions’ leaders has the same effect.

I may have asked you this, but can’t remember: do you deny that paranormal activity exists? Do you think it’s all (spirit mediums, ouija board experiences) fake?

EDIT: I would like to add something. I love science, especially astronomy and the Earth sciences, like geology, I consider myself an advocate of accurate science, which to me, doesn’t include descent with modification (CD).

Using your logic what intelligent source did God come from?

If paranormal activity were actually real they wouldn't have had to make three paranormal activity movies that look real but are still very much fake. All we would have had to do is record the correct house and Witt as many cameras we have these days here should be an abundance of evidence, but alas all that ghost and goblin and ouiji stuff is all a hoax.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

According to most YECs I've ever interacted with, you're just as hell-bound as any "evolutionist".

Yes, we all die and go to the Grave, which is what hell (Sheol, Hades) is. Ecclesiastes 9:10.

After all, according to them you don't take God at his word when He says He created everything in 6 days,

We have to take God at all of His word, like Genesis 2:4, World English Bible: "This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens". Here, "history of generations" = "day".

...and you believe there was death before the first sin, which makes Jesus' sacrifice meaningless.

No, they'd be wrong. Animal death, yes (that's why Adam knew what Jehovah meant when He said Adam would die if he stole that fruit); human death, no. Adam, as a son of God, could have lived forever. (That's still God's purpose for humans, through Jesus' sacrifice). So humans are a separate creation. (This answers the question below.)

 

[Profound Realization]

Well, I suppose if you want to get Guy to agree that human intelligence is the result of natural selection, go right ahead.

You misunderstood. You acknowledged as fact that human intelligence/design/engineering is not from the mechanism of natural selection.

If not from the mechanism of natural selection, then what are the alternatives? Where did human intelligence/design/engineering come from?

 

[Sapiens]

You misunderstood. You acknowledged as fact that human intelligence/design/engineering is not from the mechanism of natural selection.

If not from the mechanism of natural selection, then what are the alternatives? Where did human intelligence/design/engineering come from?

It did come from Natural Selection.

 

[Profound Realization]

No, not at all. The closest was Luskin's mention of lobopods in general, but as far as the specific specimens I cited....nope.


First of all, it would be Casey Luskin (the source you cited). He's a lawyer with absolutely no education, training, or experience in paleontology, let alone Cambrian paleontology.

And he's a documented liar and charlatan.

PZ Myers: Casey Luskin caught quote mining

Luskin wrote

In January, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on this debate, declaring that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,“1 because neo-Darwinism is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter”2 it. As an undergraduate and graduate student taking multiple courses covering evolutionary biology at the University of California San Diego, that is what I was told as well. My science courses rarely, if ever, allowed students to seriously entertain the possibility that Darwin’s theory might be fundamentally flawed.
​

Now the context:

The first part of the quote is from page 52, near the end of the book. Here it is in context:

[1] There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwarranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes.
​

Where do you think we’ll find the second half of his quote? Page 53, maybe? Page 54? No. You’ll have to thumb backwards through the book, to a place near the beginning: page 16.​

I still maintain that it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

This is just getting too funny.

I suppose you then diregard any human as an authority, until you can prove that there are humans who have never lied before.

You made a plea to PZ Meyers as an authority, who has been caught lying numerous times himself. Am I immature and petty enough to conclude that any source PZ Meyers has ever used in his life is also a lie?

It’s getting rather immature, in my opinion, attacking people rather than the sources they infer too.

Your maintained opinion, in your own view, is unauthorative unless you can prove that you’ve never lied before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is just getting too funny.

I suppose you then diregard any human as an authority, until you can prove that there are humans who have never lied before.

You made a plea to PZ Meyers as an authority, who has been caught lying numerous times himself. Am I immature and petty enough to conclude that any source PZ Meyers has ever used in his life is also a lie?

It’s getting rather immature, in my opinion, attacking people rather than the sources they infer too.

Your maintained opinion, in your own view, is unauthorative unless you can prove that you’ve never lied before.

Wrong. There are certain standards to what an expert is if one wants to appeal to one. He must be an expert in the field that he is writing on. This eliminates Luskin. If an author relies upon the works of others he cannot try to change what they are saying. This again disqualifies Luskin.

When has PZ Meyers ever been caught lying? Just because he said something that you do not like that does not make it a lie. Luskin has been caught lying many times. The video by Thunderf00t that you ignored gave examples. Once again, when and where has Meyers lied about evolution?

 

[Profound Realization]

No, not at all. The closest was Luskin's mention of lobopods in general, but as far as the specific specimens I cited....nope.


First of all, it would be Casey Luskin (the source you cited). He's a lawyer with absolutely no education, training, or experience in paleontology, let alone Cambrian paleontology.

And he's a documented liar and charlatan.

PZ Myers: Casey Luskin caught quote mining

Luskin wrote

In January, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on this debate, declaring that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,“1 because neo-Darwinism is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter”2 it. As an undergraduate and graduate student taking multiple courses covering evolutionary biology at the University of California San Diego, that is what I was told as well. My science courses rarely, if ever, allowed students to seriously entertain the possibility that Darwin’s theory might be fundamentally flawed.
​

Now the context:

The first part of the quote is from page 52, near the end of the book. Here it is in context:

[1] There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwarranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes.
​

Where do you think we’ll find the second half of his quote? Page 53, maybe? Page 54? No. You’ll have to thumb backwards through the book, to a place near the beginning: page 16.​

I still maintain that it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

But let’s first discuss the Lobopod... cite evidence today that the Lobopod is still thought to be a transitional. It is not.