" I'm more interested in what modern science has to say. "

Science says nothing. Scientist do, with all their biases and preconceived notions. Just like you and I.

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

---

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The definition of faith I will use is trust/confidence/belief and for supernatural it is something beyond the natural laws. I do not have belief in or know what processes manifested our current universe, whether they were natural or supernatural (at least, according to our current understanding of physics).

How then do I have faith in the supernatural if my response is "I don't know" to your question? You may be correct here, but based on my understanding of what faith & supernatural mean, I don't understand the connection.

---

Maybe now you understand when people say their proof of a higher power is because we exist. When you cannot define the most critical point of existence, an origin, everything else only proves to be postulate and theory. You are as equally reliant upon the supernatural for your existence and your understanding as many religious people are. The fact you said "I don't know"' is a perfectly fine response, and the exact sort of proclamation a believer puts forth when they say they can't fathom, understand, or explain God. You're looking for the higher power/supernatural to reveal itself just like the rest of us are. That's your version of faith.

---

Yeah I don't buy that. The difference is a scientific approach is okay with not knowing something, and not pretending to add additional complexities on top to explain things.

Religious people don't simply say "I don't know", they emphatically proclaim to have the truth.

---

What a totally false statement!

Have you never heard a Christian speak of mystery?

Have you never heard people say "we don't know now but, science will eventually provide an answer.

Wow! Talk about biases

You should quit now while you still have a sliver of credibility left, as small as it is.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

---

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The definition of faith I will use is trust/confidence/belief and for supernatural it is something beyond the natural laws. I do not have belief in or know what processes manifested our current universe, whether they were natural or supernatural (at least, according to our current understanding of physics).

How then do I have faith in the supernatural if my response is "I don't know" to your question? You may be correct here, but based on my understanding of what faith & supernatural mean, I don't understand the connection.

---

Maybe now you understand when people say their proof of a higher power is because we exist. When you cannot define the most critical point of existence, an origin, everything else only proves to be postulate and theory. You are as equally reliant upon the supernatural for your existence and your understanding as many religious people are. The fact you said "I don't know"' is a perfectly fine response, and the exact sort of proclamation a believer puts forth when they say they can't fathom, understand, or explain God. You're looking for the higher power/supernatural to reveal itself just like the rest of us are. That's your version of faith.

---

Yeah I don't buy that. The difference is a scientific approach is okay with not knowing something, and not pretending to add additional complexities on top to explain things.

Religious people don't simply say "I don't know", they emphatically proclaim to have the truth.

---

What a totally false statement!

Have you never heard a Christian speak of mystery?

Have you never heard people say "we don't know now but, science will eventually provide an answer.

Wow! Talk about biases

You should quit now while you still have a sliver of credibility left, as small as it is.

---

You're right - it was wrong of me to make such an over generalization and blanket statement about religious people. I apologize about that, because you are right - there are many religious people who genuinely approach topics like this and are comfortable saying "I don't know, but I have faith in God".

What I was meaning to refer to, were the subset of religious folks who do indeed claim to know the truth & secrets of the universe. What happens after we die? Is their a God? Etc.

See above post - it was an incorrect statement for me to make.

Quote:

---

Yes, you are wrong in even explaining the Cambrian explosion as a problem. Jay Gould struggled with the Cambrian explosion, because prior to this discovery the dominant scientific view of evolution was gradualism. Gould additionally has missed out on decades of new evidence discovered that sheds light on the events that led up to the Cambrian explosion and the subsequent evolution of life on Earth. It is a problem defined predominantly by Creationist and Intelligent Designers.

---

The Cambrian explosion remains a problem for you, no matter how you try to deny it. Because bottom line, you can't explain how the generation of the immense amount of new genetic information required to build the highly complex body structures and functions could have arisen in such a narrow window of time through, undirected, unguided, naturalistic processes. While before, with orthodox neo-Darwinism, you could say "well, there was a lot of time for random, undirected events and natural selection to build up to complexity", but with punctuated equilibrium, you are removing the extreme length of time from the equation - which in effect, makes it even more implausible that the process was purely naturalistic and undirected.

What evidence do we have today, that Stephen Jay Gould missed, that shed's light on this problem? You only stated that this is true, you didn't qualify it.

Quote:

---

On Richard Dawkins quote … okay? I don't see him as a hero lol, but he also was adamant that the Cambrian Explosion was obviously a natural event, so cherry picking quotes is useless here. I'm more interested in what modern science has to say.

---

He says it was a natural event, but offers absolutely no plausible explanation how that is - just like they all do. It's because it's their worldview rather than science. It's their faith.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

---

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The definition of faith I will use is trust/confidence/belief and for supernatural it is something beyond the natural laws. I do not have belief in or know what processes manifested our current universe, whether they were natural or supernatural (at least, according to our current understanding of physics).

How then do I have faith in the supernatural if my response is "I don't know" to your question? You may be correct here, but based on my understanding of what faith & supernatural mean, I don't understand the connection.

---

Maybe now you understand when people say their proof of a higher power is because we exist. When you cannot define the most critical point of existence, an origin, everything else only proves to be postulate and theory. You are as equally reliant upon the supernatural for your existence and your understanding as many religious people are. The fact you said "I don't know"' is a perfectly fine response, and the exact sort of proclamation a believer puts forth when they say they can't fathom, understand, or explain God. You're looking for the higher power/supernatural to reveal itself just like the rest of us are. That's your version of faith.

---

Yeah I don't buy that. The difference is a scientific approach is okay with not knowing something, and not pretending to add additional complexities on top to explain things.

Religious people don't simply say "I don't know", they emphatically proclaim to have the truth.

---

What a totally false statement!

Have you never heard a Christian speak of mystery?

Have you never heard people say "we don't know now but, science will eventually provide an answer.

Wow! Talk about biases

You should quit now while you still have a sliver of credibility left, as small as it is.

---

You're right - it was wrong of me to make such an over generalization and blanket statement about religious people. I apologize about that, because you are right - there are many religious people who genuinely approach topics like this and are comfortable saying "I don't know, but I have faith in God".

What I was meaning to refer to, were the subset of religious folks who do indeed claim to know the truth & secrets of the universe. What happens after we die? Is their a God? Etc.

---

thanks for addressing the error on your statement regarding religious folks but, you didn't bother to address the issue of the biases of those whose faith is in science.

Quote:

---

"Random, unguided processes" is an incorrect description of evolution, but that's a pointless debate at this point. Present molecular data indicates that the Cambrian Explosion may be partly influenced by biases in the fossil record. This suggests that the organisms observed during this period might have existed much earlier than previously thought. However, due to the limited number of examined rocks from that era and the low likelihood of preservation, the portrayal of the Cambrian Explosion in popular science may not accurately represent how the event unfolded. If you're interested, here are some more recent studies on the molecular evidence pointing to this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982218313411#bib4

---

Random, unguided processes is exactly the process of naturalistic evolution. There is no goal direction. That would require a mind, an intelligence.

The article you cited says NOTHING about molecular evidence. It only talks about morphology and speciation models. Moreover, it does NOTHING to explain how an immense amount of genetic information coding for highly complex structures and functions arose. This is the central problem that naturalists are always avoiding, or failing to explain completely.

Do you even read the articles you cite? Yet again, another article you cite which has nothing to do with your claim. Is this the "unscientific manner of thinking" you referenced earlier?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, you are wrong in even explaining the Cambrian explosion as a problem. Jay Gould struggled with the Cambrian explosion, because prior to this discovery the dominant scientific view of evolution was gradualism. Gould additionally has missed out on decades of new evidence discovered that sheds light on the events that led up to the Cambrian explosion and the subsequent evolution of life on Earth. It is a problem defined predominantly by Creationist and Intelligent Designers.

---

The Cambrian explosion remains a problem for you, no matter how you try to deny it. Because bottom line, you can't explain how the generation of the immense amount of new genetic information required to build the highly complex body structures and functions could have arisen in such a narrow window of time through, undirected, unguided, naturalistic processes. While before, with orthodox neo-Darwinism, you could say "well, there was a lot of time for random, undirected events and natural selection to build up to complexity", but with punctuated equilibrium, you are removing the extreme length of time from the equation - which in effect, makes it even more implausible that the process was purely naturalistic and undirected.

What evidence do we have today, that Stephen Jay Gould missed, that shed's light on this problem? You only stated that this is true, you didn't qualify it.

---

Here are three key studies within the past ~decade that have advanced our understanding:

• Erwin et al. (2011) published a paper titled "The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals" in Science. They presented evidence for deep divergence of animal lineages before the Cambrian explosion, suggesting a long period of cryptic evolution before the emergence of complex body plans and ecological diversification. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1206375]
• Parry et al. (2016) conducted a study on "Ichnological evidence for meiofaunal bilaterians from the terminal Ediacaran and earliest Cambrian of Brazil" published in Nature Ecology & Evolution. They identified trace fossils from the terminal Ediacaran and earliest Cambrian periods, indicating the presence of small, soft-bodied bilaterian animals. This finding provides evidence for the early evolution of bilaterians before the Cambrian explosion. [DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0009]
• Zhang et al. (2018) published an article in Scientific Reports titled "New reconstruction of the Wiwaxia scleritome, with data from Chengjiang juveniles." They described new reconstructions of the enigmatic Cambrian organism Wiwaxia, based on well-preserved fossils from the Chengjiang Biota. The findings shed light on the evolution of molluscs and the broader context of early animal evolution. [DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34863-4]

These and similar recent discoveries help us have a better understanding of the Ediacaran Period and early Cambrian period on why there was an influx of new genetic material.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

It's really odd that that same crowd that believes God was around for ever isn't willing to admit that time is infinitive.

There is more than enough time for all of evolution to happen in a few days. The probabilities you are referring to, which if you believe them, are still for our current planet. When you throw in an infinite amount of space and time some crazy stuff can happen. Including the creation of a divine being, which I don't rule out. I just think Christianity was a multilevel marketing scheme that went too far.

If you are living in the anomaly it doesn't seem that rare.

---

The second law of thermodynamics says it isn't infinite.

With a twist on your turtle analogy, you want turtles, all the way down.

---

Do you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? I suppose time doesn't exist because of the Cartesian coordinate system?

I can only imagine you bringing up this point at a astrophysics conference thinking it is a gotcha to the room full of theorists that disagree with you.

---

Also just to add - we have absolutely no concrete idea if our immediate universe is infinite, or is an open or closed system.

Interestingly enough though, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may still be valid even if our universe is infinite, as we are still able to theoretically partition infinite sets

---

Either way, is the occurrence of logic the result of random chance?

---

Researchers have shown that even simple organisms like bacteria and plants exhibit a kind of rudimentary decision-making, in which they assess their environment and choose between different options based on their goals. Over time, this basic decision-making ability has evolved into more complex forms of reasoning and logic in more advanced organisms like humans.

The genetic mutations themselves are best statistically modeled as random chance, but the selection process is anything but random.

---

That is not the question. Logic either pre-existed the universe or was created. contemporaneously with the universe. Otherwise, the universe--from the smallest particles to the largest structures--would not operate according in a predictable manner. I just want to know if logic the result of random chance.

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

---

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The definition of faith I will use is trust/confidence/belief and for supernatural it is something beyond the natural laws. I do not have belief in or know what processes manifested our current universe, whether they were natural or supernatural (at least, according to our current understanding of physics).

How then do I have faith in the supernatural if my response is "I don't know" to your question? You may be correct here, but based on my understanding of what faith & supernatural mean, I don't understand the connection.

---

Maybe now you understand when people say their proof of a higher power is because we exist. When you cannot define the most critical point of existence, an origin, everything else only proves to be postulate and theory. You are as equally reliant upon the supernatural for your existence and your understanding as many religious people are. The fact you said "I don't know"' is a perfectly fine response, and the exact sort of proclamation a believer puts forth when they say they can't fathom, understand, or explain God. You're looking for the higher power/supernatural to reveal itself just like the rest of us are. That's your version of faith.

---

Yeah I don't buy that. The difference is a scientific approach is okay with not knowing something, and not pretending to add additional complexities on top to explain things.

Religious people don't simply say "I don't know", they emphatically proclaim to have the truth.

---

What a totally false statement!

Have you never heard a Christian speak of mystery?

Have you never heard people say "we don't know now but, science will eventually provide an answer.

Wow! Talk about biases

You should quit now while you still have a sliver of credibility left, as small as it is.

---

You're right - it was wrong of me to make such an over generalization and blanket statement about religious people. I apologize about that, because you are right - there are many religious people who genuinely approach topics like this and are comfortable saying "I don't know, but I have faith in God".

What I was meaning to refer to, were the subset of religious folks who do indeed claim to know the truth & secrets of the universe. What happens after we die? Is their a God? Etc.

---

thanks for addressing the error on your statement regarding religious folks but, you didn't bother to address the issue of the biases of those whose faith is in science.

---

Scientists, like all humans, can have biases that influence their interpretation of data, experimental design, and the conclusions they draw from their work. Bias in science may be conscious or unconscious.

Regarding "faith" in science, it is essential to differentiate between faith as belief without evidence and faith as confidence in a well-established process. In the context of science, faith generally refers to trust in the scientific method. The scientific method aims to minimize the influence of individual biases by relying on reproducibility, peer review, and a continuous cycle of hypothesis testing and refinement. While scientists trust the scientific method as a process for advancing knowledge, they also understand that scientific understanding is provisional and can change as new evidence emerges.

Thus, their "faith" in science is not dogmatic but is based on the consistent success of the scientific method in generating reliable and verifiable knowledge about the natural world.

Quote:

---

All this to say, we are in no way able in our present time to calculate a probability of this event, as 99% of paleontologist will agree that the fossil record is incomplete, especially when discussing pre-hard bodied organisms. While I am not a biologist, I am wrapping up a masters in Statistics this semester and fortunately understand this field quite well. It is not a simple matter to calculate probabilities with so many unknowns.

---

Define "completeness" any way you want. But the fact remains, what fossils we have today, show an abrupt emergence of complex organisms not just in the Cambrian explosion but in many other abrupt biodiversity and complexity events as well (which tends to be the rule, not the exception of the fossil record). Naturalistic explanations all fail to plausibly explain how such new genetic information could have arisen in such a short time. Even Gould himself realized this with his own theory of punctuated equilibrium.

No one is asking anyone to calculate an exact mathematical probability. That's just a pointless redirect. What we DO know today about the process of going from gene to protein and what it would take to build highly complex structures, it gives a general idea of the implausibility for naturalistic processes to be the driving force behind that. We can't calculate the exact probability that a deck of cards will land in the shape of a house, but we don't need to in order to understand that such an occurrence would be highly, highly, improbable.

Quote:

---

Random, unguided processes is exactly the process of naturalistic evolution. There is no goal direction. That would require a mind, an intelligence.

---

Naturalistic evolution involves both random and non-random processes. Natural selection is not a random process.

Quote:

---

The article you cited says NOTHING about molecular evidence. It only talks about morphology and speciation models. Moreover, it does NOTHING to explain how an immense amount of genetic information coding for highly complex structures and functions arose. This is the central problem that naturalists are always avoiding, or failing to explain completely.

Do you even read the articles you cite? Yet again, another article you cite which has nothing to do with your claim. Is this the "unscientific manner of thinking" you referenced earlier?

---

Sorry - you are correct. The paper mentions a correlation between morphological differences between phyla and factors such as genome size and microRNA repertoires, which I interpreted as molecular evidence.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, you are wrong in even explaining the Cambrian explosion as a problem. Jay Gould struggled with the Cambrian explosion, because prior to this discovery the dominant scientific view of evolution was gradualism. Gould additionally has missed out on decades of new evidence discovered that sheds light on the events that led up to the Cambrian explosion and the subsequent evolution of life on Earth. It is a problem defined predominantly by Creationist and Intelligent Designers.

---

The Cambrian explosion remains a problem for you, no matter how you try to deny it. Because bottom line, you can't explain how the generation of the immense amount of new genetic information required to build the highly complex body structures and functions could have arisen in such a narrow window of time through, undirected, unguided, naturalistic processes. While before, with orthodox neo-Darwinism, you could say "well, there was a lot of time for random, undirected events and natural selection to build up to complexity", but with punctuated equilibrium, you are removing the extreme length of time from the equation - which in effect, makes it even more implausible that the process was purely naturalistic and undirected.

What evidence do we have today, that Stephen Jay Gould missed, that shed's light on this problem? You only stated that this is true, you didn't qualify it.

---

Here are three key studies within the past ~decade that have advanced our understanding:

• Erwin et al. (2011) published a paper titled "The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals" in Science. They presented evidence for deep divergence of animal lineages before the Cambrian explosion, suggesting a long period of cryptic evolution before the emergence of complex body plans and ecological diversification. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1206375]
• Parry et al. (2016) conducted a study on "Ichnological evidence for meiofaunal bilaterians from the terminal Ediacaran and earliest Cambrian of Brazil" published in Nature Ecology & Evolution. They identified trace fossils from the terminal Ediacaran and earliest Cambrian periods, indicating the presence of small, soft-bodied bilaterian animals. This finding provides evidence for the early evolution of bilaterians before the Cambrian explosion. [DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0009]
• Zhang et al. (2018) published an article in Scientific Reports titled "New reconstruction of the Wiwaxia scleritome, with data from Chengjiang juveniles." They described new reconstructions of the enigmatic Cambrian organism Wiwaxia, based on well-preserved fossils from the Chengjiang Biota. The findings shed light on the evolution of molluscs and the broader context of early animal evolution. [DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34863-4]

These and similar recent discoveries help us have a better understanding of the Ediacaran Period and early Cambrian period on why there was an influx of new genetic material.

---

Can you summarize this? How did this new genetic material arise, based on these articles? What was the mechanism? For example, in the first article, the abstract says: "We argue that this diversification involved new forms of developmental regulation, as well as innovations in networks of ecological interaction within the context of permissive environmental circumstances." Ok, so, they claim what was involved. How did it arise?

Quote:

---

Define "completeness" any way you want. But the fact remains, what fossils we have today, show an abrupt emergence of complex organisms not just in the Cambrian explosion but in many other abrupt biodiversity and complexity events as well (which tends to be the rule, not the exception of the fossil record). Naturalistic explanations all fail to plausibly explain how such new genetic information could have arisen in such a short time. Even Gould himself realized this with his own theory of punctuated equilibrium.

---

Although the fossil record may indeed display sudden shifts in biodiversity and complexity, it doesn't automatically render naturalistic explanations as incapable of accounting for these phenomena. There are multiple factors that could contribute to the perception of abrupt leaps in complexity:

• Preservation bias: As I previously noted, the fossil record is far from comprehensive, especially when it comes to organisms that predate the development of hard bodily structures. Fossils of soft-bodied organisms are less likely to be preserved, which can create the illusion of a sudden appearance of complex life forms when they eventually materialize in the fossil record.
• Sampling bias: Our understanding of the fossil record is reliant on the fossils that have been discovered and examined, which represent only a tiny fraction of all organisms that have ever existed. Consequently, the seemingly sudden transitions in complexity may partially stem from the restricted and potentially skewed sample of fossils available for study.
• Swift evolutionary occurrences: Gould and Eldredge's concept of punctuated equilibrium concedes that evolution can occasionally transpire at an accelerated pace. However, this admission does not inherently contradict the plausibility of naturalistic processes. Factors such as environmental shifts, genetic influences, or other natural mechanisms can trigger rapid evolutionary events.

Quote:

---

No one is asking anyone to calculate an exact mathematical probability. That's just a pointless redirect. What we DO know today about the process of going from gene to protein and what it would take to build highly complex structures, it gives a general idea of the implausibility for naturalistic processes to be the driving force behind that. We can't calculate the exact probability that a deck of cards will land in the shape of a house, but we don't need to in order to understand that such an occurrence would be highly, highly, improbable.

---

It's crucial to acknowledge that our comprehension of the processes involved in transitioning from genes to proteins and assembling intricate structures remains incomplete. Our knowledge in these areas is continuously advancing as new discoveries emerge.

It's important to recognize that, while we may be unable to determine an exact mathematical probability, drawing conclusive assertions about the implausibility of naturalistic processes based on our present understanding is not warranted - at the moment it is quite literally impossible.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Random, unguided processes is exactly the process of naturalistic evolution. There is no goal direction. That would require a mind, an intelligence.

---

Naturalistic evolution involves both random and non-random processes. Natural selection is not a random process.

---

Random, adj. - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision:

Natural selection is purely by chance. There is no goal direction.

And you don't have natural selection without first having gene mutation and change, which is random.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Can you summarize this? How did this new genetic material arise, based on these articles? What was the mechanism? For example, in the first article, the abstract says: "We argue that this diversification involved new forms of developmental regulation, as well as innovations in networks of ecological interaction within the context of permissive environmental circumstances." Ok, so, they claim what was involved. How did it arise?

---

This paper describes how the Cambrian Explosion involved the construction of unique feedback between biological potential and eco-environmental context, including the oxygenation of the ocean's waters. This long lag between the origin and eventual ecological dominance of clades demonstrates that evolution is not always relentlessly opportunistic.

On the topic of the influx of new genetic material, here are some snippets of the journal walking through the current understanding:

• "The temporal lag between the initial construction of these networks and the eventual appearance of bilaterian fossils suggests that the solution to the dilemma of the Cambrian explosion lies not solely with this genomic and developmental potential, but instead must also be found in the ecology of the Cambrian radiation itself."
• "Because of this long lag between the origin and eventual ecological dominance of clades, data on taxonomic occurrences alone are insufficient to understand evolutionary dynamics and must be accompanied by data on abundances and ecological impact, in addition to accurate and precise estimates of both evolutionary origin and geological first appearances. Macroevolutionary lags such as that which preceded the Cambrian explosion were not unique to animals, as similar dynamics seem to underlie plant evolution as well. Understanding both early animal and plant evolution requires an understanding of the processes that generate biodiversity and the expansion of ecological networks through deep time."
• "Animals require oxygen to fuel their metabolism, and these geochemical proxies and their interpretation as markers of redox conditions have been invoked to explain the lag between the origin of animals and the Cambrian radiation itself. In this view, low oxygen in the oceans and diffusive oxygen transport constrained animals to small size, and only with an increase in oxygen levels could organisms evolve larger, three-dimensional body sizes, greatly facilitating their eventual paleontological detection. Thus, although a permissive environment does not explain innovations in metazoan architecture, it might facilitate the appearance of large and ecologically diverse animals in the fossil record."

In summary, the Cambrian explosion was facilitated by a permissive environment of increased oxygen levels, ecological radiation, and macro-evolutionary lags, which allowed for the emergence of new species, expansion of genetic material, and diverse three-dimensional body sizes.

To help illustrate this, the paper has a visualization to help better detail the relationship between molecular divergences for animal lineage and their respective position in the strata. The macroscopic Ediacara fossil record is represented in green (see the scale at the bottom). Thick black lines display the known fossil records of the 13 lineages during the Cryogenian-Ordovician period; most lineages emerge in the Cambrian, consistent with the overall known animal fossil record (yellow and blue):


As this details, Animals' class and phylum-level fossil records are shown in yellow and blue, respectively, with hatching signifying lineages belonging to a specific phylum but not to any living classes. The scope of these strati-graphic ranges closely matches the molecular age estimates for each corresponding crown group, highlighting the general accuracy of the molecular clock. The sole exception is cnidarians, which have an unexpectedly deep crown-group origination according to molecular clock estimates, while the deep demo-sponge divergence is apparent from taxon-specific biomarkers.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Can you summarize this? How did this new genetic material arise, based on these articles? What was the mechanism? For example, in the first article, the abstract says: "We argue that this diversification involved new forms of developmental regulation, as well as innovations in networks of ecological interaction within the context of permissive environmental circumstances." Ok, so, they claim what was involved. How did it arise?

---

This paper describes how the Cambrian Explosion involved the construction of unique feedback between biological potential and eco-environmental context, including the oxygenation of the ocean's waters. This long lag between the origin and eventual ecological dominance of clades demonstrates that evolution is not always relentlessly opportunistic.

On the topic of the influx of new genetic material, here are some snippets of the journal walking through the current understanding:

• "The temporal lag between the initial construction of these networks and the eventual appearance of bilaterian fossils suggests that the solution to the dilemma of the Cambrian explosion lies not solely with this genomic and developmental potential, but instead must also be found in the ecology of the Cambrian radiation itself."
• "Because of this long lag between the origin and eventual ecological dominance of clades, data on taxonomic occurrences alone are insufficient to understand evolutionary dynamics and must be accompanied by data on abundances and ecological impact, in addition to accurate and precise estimates of both evolutionary origin and geological first appearances. Macroevolutionary lags such as that which preceded the Cambrian explosion were not unique to animals, as similar dynamics seem to underlie plant evolution as well. Understanding both early animal and plant evolution requires an understanding of the processes that generate biodiversity and the expansion of ecological networks through deep time."
• "Animals require oxygen to fuel their metabolism, and these geochemical proxies and their interpretation as markers of redox conditions have been invoked to explain the lag between the origin of animals and the Cambrian radiation itself. In this view, low oxygen in the oceans and diffusive oxygen transport constrained animals to small size, and only with an increase in oxygen levels could organisms evolve larger, three-dimensional body sizes, greatly facilitating their eventual paleontological detection. Thus, although a permissive environment does not explain innovations in metazoan architecture, it might facilitate the appearance of large and ecologically diverse animals in the fossil record."

In summary, the Cambrian explosion was facilitated by a permissive environment of increased oxygen levels, ecological radiation, and macro-evolutionary lags, which allowed for the emergence of new species, expansion of genetic material, and diverse three-dimensional body sizes.

To help illustrate this, the paper has a visualization to help better detail the relationship between molecular divergences for animal lineage and their respective position in the strata. The macroscopic Ediacara fossil record is represented in green (see the scale at the bottom). Thick black lines display the known fossil records of the 13 lineages during the Cryogenian-Ordovician period; most lineages emerge in the Cambrian, consistent with the overall known animal fossil record (yellow and blue):


As this details, Animals' class and phylum-level fossil records are shown in yellow and blue, respectively, with hatching signifying lineages belonging to a specific phylum but not to any living classes. The scope of these strati-graphic ranges closely matches the molecular age estimates for each corresponding crown group, highlighting the general accuracy of the molecular clock. The sole exception is cnidarians, which have an unexpectedly deep crown-group origination according to molecular clock estimates, while the deep demo-sponge divergence is apparent from taxon-specific biomarkers.

---

NOTHING here addresses the mechanism for the generation of new genetic information that could account for the incredible complexity of organisms within the 20 new phyla that emerged in the Cambrian. "Permissive environments" are not themselves the mechanism for such genetic information. Read the last snippet you listed:

"Thus, although a permissive environment does not explain innovations in metazoan architecture, it might facilitate the appearance of large and ecologically diverse animals in the fossil record."

Read this over and over if you have to.

THIS is exactly what I'm saying that naturalists do - sound all sciency and throw out a lot of big concepts in order to hide the fact that they have not solved their problem. I love it though, that ultimately they HAVE to make this concession, albeit in the quickest, most inconspicuous way possible, in the form of one or two sentences tucked in at the very end. People that know how to read the material, can closely examine their work and can call them out on this. They hope that the vast majority of the public will buy it uncritically, just by virtue of sounding all sciency and by being published in journals.

The argument of "permissive environment" leading to incredibly complex form, is like arguing that a "permissive environment" of increased air turbulence and static electricity in a room was the cause of a deck of cards to fall in the shape of a house. No, it may explain the optimal conditions for cards to fly around and stick together, but not how it fell into that exact shape. Similarly, the "permissive environment" of increased oxygen does not in of itself lead to the generation of genetic data that codes for all the proteins and structures and makes them all come together to function in an immensely complex system of aerobic metabolism. How extremely fortunate that such a complex system came to be, in order to take advantage of the increased oxygen in the surroundings!

Although the chart you included is certainly beautiful, sadly, it does not do what you purport. It is merely a taxonomic arrangement based on fossil, morphological, and biomarker data. At most, all it does is suggest common ancestry. It does NOTHING to offer a mechanism by which such complex traits arose, which is necessary for such divergence to result in the first place. Sorry, you have not solved your problem.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Can you summarize this? How did this new genetic material arise, based on these articles? What was the mechanism? For example, in the first article, the abstract says: "We argue that this diversification involved new forms of developmental regulation, as well as innovations in networks of ecological interaction within the context of permissive environmental circumstances." Ok, so, they claim what was involved. How did it arise?

---

This paper describes how the Cambrian Explosion involved the construction of unique feedback between biological potential and eco-environmental context, including the oxygenation of the ocean's waters. This long lag between the origin and eventual ecological dominance of clades demonstrates that evolution is not always relentlessly opportunistic.

On the topic of the influx of new genetic material, here are some snippets of the journal walking through the current understanding:

• "The temporal lag between the initial construction of these networks and the eventual appearance of bilaterian fossils suggests that the solution to the dilemma of the Cambrian explosion lies not solely with this genomic and developmental potential, but instead must also be found in the ecology of the Cambrian radiation itself."
• "Because of this long lag between the origin and eventual ecological dominance of clades, data on taxonomic occurrences alone are insufficient to understand evolutionary dynamics and must be accompanied by data on abundances and ecological impact, in addition to accurate and precise estimates of both evolutionary origin and geological first appearances. Macroevolutionary lags such as that which preceded the Cambrian explosion were not unique to animals, as similar dynamics seem to underlie plant evolution as well. Understanding both early animal and plant evolution requires an understanding of the processes that generate biodiversity and the expansion of ecological networks through deep time."
• "Animals require oxygen to fuel their metabolism, and these geochemical proxies and their interpretation as markers of redox conditions have been invoked to explain the lag between the origin of animals and the Cambrian radiation itself. In this view, low oxygen in the oceans and diffusive oxygen transport constrained animals to small size, and only with an increase in oxygen levels could organisms evolve larger, three-dimensional body sizes, greatly facilitating their eventual paleontological detection. Thus, although a permissive environment does not explain innovations in metazoan architecture, it might facilitate the appearance of large and ecologically diverse animals in the fossil record."

In summary, the Cambrian explosion was facilitated by a permissive environment of increased oxygen levels, ecological radiation, and macro-evolutionary lags, which allowed for the emergence of new species, expansion of genetic material, and diverse three-dimensional body sizes.

To help illustrate this, the paper has a visualization to help better detail the relationship between molecular divergences for animal lineage and their respective position in the strata. The macroscopic Ediacara fossil record is represented in green (see the scale at the bottom). Thick black lines display the known fossil records of the 13 lineages during the Cryogenian-Ordovician period; most lineages emerge in the Cambrian, consistent with the overall known animal fossil record (yellow and blue):


As this details, Animals' class and phylum-level fossil records are shown in yellow and blue, respectively, with hatching signifying lineages belonging to a specific phylum but not to any living classes. The scope of these strati-graphic ranges closely matches the molecular age estimates for each corresponding crown group, highlighting the general accuracy of the molecular clock. The sole exception is cnidarians, which have an unexpectedly deep crown-group origination according to molecular clock estimates, while the deep demo-sponge divergence is apparent from taxon-specific biomarkers.

---

NOTHING here addresses the mechanism for the generation of new genetic information that could account for the incredible complexity of organisms within the 20 new phyla that emerged in the Cambrian. "Permissive environments" are not themselves the mechanism for such genetic information. Read the last snippet you listed:

"Thus, although a permissive environment does not explain innovations in metazoan architecture, it might facilitate the appearance of large and ecologically diverse animals in the fossil record."

Read this over and over if you have to.

THIS is exactly what I'm saying that naturalists do - sound all sciency and throw out a lot of big concepts in order to hide the fact that they have not solved their problem. I love it though, that ultimately they HAVE to make this concession, albeit in the quickest, most inconspicuous way possible, in the form of one or two sentences tucked in at the very end. People that know how to read the material, can closely examine their work and can call them out on this. They hope that the vast majority of the public will buy it uncritically, just by virtue of sounding all sciency and by being published in journals.

The argument of "permissive environment" leading to incredibly complex form, is like arguing that a "permissive environment" of increased air turbulence and static electricity in a room was the cause of a deck of cards to fall in the shape of a house. No, it may explain the optimal conditions for cards to fly around and stick together, but not how it fell into that exact shape. Similarly, the "permissive environment" of increased oxygen does not in of itself lead to the generation of genetic data that codes for all the proteins and structures and makes them all come together to function in an immensely complex system of aerobic metabolism. How extremely fortunate that such a complex system came to be, in order to take advantage of the increased oxygen in the surroundings!

Although the chart you included is certainly beautiful, sadly, it does not do what you purport. It is merely a taxonomic arrangement based on fossil, morphological, and biomarker data. At most, all it does is suggest common ancestry. It does NOTHING to offer a mechanism by which such complex traits arose, which is necessary for such divergence to result in the first place. Sorry, you have not solved your problem.

---

I apologize if my previous point was unclear. What I was trying to convey is that while the Cambrian explosion was once thought to be a genetic explosion that occurred over a period of ~30-50 million years, new molecular clock studies (including the one discussed) suggest that many of the major animal groups or phyla that appear in the Cambrian had actually diverged from each other much earlier, possibly as far back as 700-800 million years ago or even earlier. This indicates that the genetic and morphological changes that gave rise to these groups must have taken place gradually over a much longer period than previously believed.

Furthermore, it is now understood that the rapid expansion during the Ediacaran-Cambrian periods was facilitated by a critical threshold in bottom oxygen levels between 3% and 10% of modern surface waters. This allowed for predation to occur in modern seas, resulting in a significant shift in selection criteria.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, it is now understood that the rapid expansion during the Ediacaran-Cambrian periods was facilitated by a critical threshold in bottom oxygen levels between 3% and 10% of modern surface waters. This allowed for predation to occur in modern seas, resulting in a significant shift in selection criteria.

---

And as said many times before, selection pressure does nothing to create new genetic information for advanced complexity. You are still without a plausible mechanism.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My apologies - I thought you were asking about logic relative to Humans, not just logic as a concept overall.

So I can better answer your question, can you please expand a bit on the relationship between logic and the predictable manner of physics? To my understanding, the concept of logic is a human invention, and it is a tool that we use to reason about the world and make sense of our observations.

---

Math is the expression of logic in the form of a universal language (numerical).

---

I am genuinely trying to follow you here. So you hold the position that mathematics has always existed (before human invention/discovery), and thus - there had to have been an intelligent designer to create this logical system?

---

When do you think order and predictability appeared in the universe?

---

Shortly after the big bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, the fundamental forces of nature began to separate and the first particles began to form. As these particles interacted with each other, the laws of physics began to emerge, governing the behavior of matter and energy in increasingly complex ways.

---

Perhaps consider that the complex laws of matter and energy already existed, and the progression was a result of that preexisting order. Matter and energy do not and cannot define themselves. They are subject to the forces and interactions put upon them. To believe in universe self creation, you'd have to believe that matter, energy, and their interaction with forces can defy physics to reorder itself.

---

We have absolutely no idea what pre-existed the singularity of the big-bang and do not even have an understanding of the physics moments after t=0.

I do not know if the universe created itself, has been in an infinite cyclical cycle, or if an all powerful being brought it into existence - nor does anyone else know.

---

So we all share faith in the supernatural.

---

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The definition of faith I will use is trust/confidence/belief and for supernatural it is something beyond the natural laws. I do not have belief in or know what processes manifested our current universe, whether they were natural or supernatural (at least, according to our current understanding of physics).

How then do I have faith in the supernatural if my response is "I don't know" to your question? You may be correct here, but based on my understanding of what faith & supernatural mean, I don't understand the connection.

---

Maybe now you understand when people say their proof of a higher power is because we exist. When you cannot define the most critical point of existence, an origin, everything else only proves to be postulate and theory. You are as equally reliant upon the supernatural for your existence and your understanding as many religious people are. The fact you said "I don't know"' is a perfectly fine response, and the exact sort of proclamation a believer puts forth when they say they can't fathom, understand, or explain God. You're looking for the higher power/supernatural to reveal itself just like the rest of us are. That's your version of faith.

---

Yeah I don't buy that. The difference is a scientific approach is okay with not knowing something, and not pretending to add additional complexities on top to explain things.

Religious people don't simply say "I don't know", they emphatically proclaim to have the truth.

---

You need to get to know a lot more "religious people."

Quote:

---

Wait..so now you're going BACK to evolution being a really slow, incremental process?

You went from evolution being slow, to really quick, and now back to slow. If there really is an evolution "explosion", apparently it's in your quickly evolving stance.

---

Nope - evolution absolutely has periods of stasis and rapid change. My point was that what was previously thought to be a period of 30-50 million years, is now a few hundred million years. Still, to your point, a very fast period with so much new genetic information - but not the "explosion" that is seen in the fossil record.

Also, yes - prior to our conversation I thought the Cambrian period's new genetic information was created in a period of about 50-100 million years. However, after reading the latest discoveries, I updated my position with the latest evidence to be a few hundred million years.

When it comes to scientific topics, I learn new things nearly daily and update my position on them. Your use of the word "evolution" regarding my position is actually an excellent description - and something I hope to continue doing.

Quote:

---

You do realize, though, that now you've circled back to the same problem you had before - the lack of requisite transitional fossils and intermediate forms before the Cambrian? Aren't molecular clocks only highlighting your problem?

---

As stated before, there is bias in the fossil record for hard bodied organisms. The fact that there is a sudden appearance of them over ~50 million years in the early Cambrian era is not surprising, but expected.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait..so now you're going BACK to evolution being a really slow, incremental process?

You went from evolution being slow, to really quick, and now back to slow. If there really is an evolution "explosion", apparently it's in your quickly evolving stance.

---

Nope - evolution absolutely has periods of stasis and rapid change. My point was that what was previously thought to be a period of 30-50 million years, is now a few hundred million years. Still, to your point, a very fast period with so much new genetic information - but not the "explosion" that is seen in the fossil record.

Also, yes - prior to our conversation I thought the Cambrian period's new genetic information was created in a period of about 50-100 million years. However, after reading the latest discoveries, I updated my position with the latest evidence to be a few hundred million years.

When it comes to scientific topics, I learn new things nearly daily and update my position on them. Your use of the word "evolution" regarding my position is actually an excellent description - and something I hope to continue doing.

---

If you believe evolution was slow and incremental, then your problem is the lack of intermediate, transitional forms.

If you believe it was fast, then your problem is that you don't have any plausible mechanism to explain the abrupt emergence of new genetic information that accounts for the incredible amount of complexity.

If you're going to believe both, then you fail at both ends.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait..so now you're going BACK to evolution being a really slow, incremental process?

You went from evolution being slow, to really quick, and now back to slow. If there really is an evolution "explosion", apparently it's in your quickly evolving stance.

---

As stated before, there is bias in the fossil record for hard bodied organisms. The fact that there is a sudden appearance of them over ~50 million years in the early Cambrian era is not surprising, but expected.

---

But if evolution involved a slower, more incremental approach to genetic change, then there should be organisms that precede the Cambrian layer, with structures that don't vary too greatly to the ones that successfully fossilized in the Cambrian layer; AND there should be a whole lot of them for it to be statistically probable, right? Therefore, they should be just as conducive to being fossilized. But there are none seen.

If you're arguing that there was too quick a "jump" from soft bodied organisms to hard bodied ones, then you are again left with the problem of not having a plausible mechanism to explain the rapid change.

Quote:

---

When it comes to scientific topics, I learn new things nearly daily and update my position on them. Your use of the word "evolution" regarding my position is actually an excellent description - and something I hope to continue doing.

---

Your position actually isn't "evolution", it's more like design. As in designed to always move away from God despite the evidence.

I can't decide if the design is intelligent, though.

When it comes to evolution, Jacket wants to follow evidence that moves him away from ID/Creator. When it comes to a historical Jesus, Jacket wants to disregard evidence so he can move away from Creator Jesus.

The only consistency is, he wants to move away from Christianity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait..so now you're going BACK to evolution being a really slow, incremental process?

You went from evolution being slow, to really quick, and now back to slow. If there really is an evolution "explosion", apparently it's in your quickly evolving stance.

---

As stated before, there is bias in the fossil record for hard bodied organisms. The fact that there is a sudden appearance of them over ~50 million years in the early Cambrian era is not surprising, but expected.

---

But if evolution involved a slower, more incremental approach to genetic change, then there should be organisms that precede the Cambrian layer, with structures that don't vary too greatly to the ones that successfully fossilized in the Cambrian layer; AND there should be a whole lot of them for it to be statistically probable, right? Therefore, they should be just as conducive to being fossilized. But there are none seen.

If you're arguing that there was too quick a "jump" from soft bodied organisms to hard bodied ones, then you are again left with the problem of not having a plausible mechanism to explain the rapid change.

---

Many of the animals in the Cambrian Explosion have pretty well-evidenced lineages tracing well before the Cambrian Explosion into the Ediacaran. As they predominantly were soft bodied organisms, they do not overwhelm the strata, but we do have evidence.

The earliest evidence of the Cambrian organisms dates back to nearly 700 million years ago, which is about 130 million years before the Cambrian Explosion. During the period between the earliest animal evidence and the Cambrian, there are three primary assemblages of pre-Cambrian fossils: the Avalon Assemblage (571-555 million years ago), the White Sea Assemblage (560-551 million years ago), and the Nama Assemblage (555-541 million years ago). Together, these assemblages are known as the Ediacaran biota. The vast majority of the fossils found in these assemblages share striking similarities with the forms that emerged during the Cambrian period. The Ediacaran biota was dominated by ancestral stem groups of the animal groups that appeared during the Cambrian period (Wan et. al, 2016).

Several pre-Cambrian taxa have been identified as transitional forms or basal groups of animals:

• Rangeomorphs, such as Charnia and Fractofusus, are considered stem-eumetazoans and serve as transitional taxa for the most basal of animals, such as sponges and cnidarians. (Dunn et al., 2021)
• Haootia quadriformis has been shown to be a Cnidarian, which is the phylum containing jellyfish, hydras, and corals. (Liu et al., 2014)
• Dickinsonia has been identified as a basal bilaterian, which is a clade that includes all animals except those in the phyla Cnidaria and Porifera. (Gold et al., 2015)
• The oldest bilaterian resembling a worm, named Ikaria, has been found well before the Cambrian Explosion, suggesting that the first worms appeared before this period. (Evans et al., 2020)

I'm not arguing that the jump was "too quick", but that there is objective bias in the fossil record for soft bodied organisms, which leads to pre-cambrian fossils being significantly more rare and difficult to locate. This does not mean they did not exist, as the above discusses a few we have evidence for.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

When it comes to scientific topics, I learn new things nearly daily and update my position on them. Your use of the word "evolution" regarding my position is actually an excellent description - and something I hope to continue doing.

---

Your position actually isn't "evolution", it's more like design. As in designed to always move away from God despite the evidence.

I can't decide if the design is intelligent, though.

---

Lmao - alright, I admit this was funny.

In all serious though, if I truly am designed to move away from God despite the evidence, that is kind of God's problem for designing me that way. Not much I can do about it

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

When it comes to evolution, Jacket wants to follow evidence that moves him away from ID/Creator. When it comes to a historical Jesus, Jacket wants to disregard evidence so he can move away from Creator Jesus.

The only consistency is, he wants to move away from Christianity.

---

Lib, the theory of macro-evolution is one of the most well documented scientific theories of modern science, and has significant amount of corroborating evidence from many different fields. There are many scientists who consider it a stronger theory than gravity - while I understand that may sound silly, that is how much documented and peer reviewed evidence we have to support it.

Historical Jesus has a fraction of the evidence, where we have to rely on oral traditions passed down and copies of copies of copies of copies of textual evidence. If you may recall, I admitted my position is in the minority, and that I do in fact believe the most likely scenario for our evidence is that there was indeed a man named Yeshua who was an apocalyptic Jew who had a following and was crucified. However, I am not 100% confident in this position.

I'm not interested in moving away from Christianity or moving towards it, but listening to why others believe the things they do from both a religious and scientific perspective. If someone gives me incredible evidence for something that is documented and peer reviewed, I am absolutely open to change my position on the subject.

Quote:

---

The earliest evidence of the Cambrian organisms dates back to nearly 700 million years ago, which is about 130 million years before the Cambrian Explosion. During the period between the earliest animal evidence and the Cambrian, there are three primary assemblages of pre-Cambrian fossils: the Avalon Assemblage (571-555 million years ago), the White Sea Assemblage (560-551 million years ago), and the Nama Assemblage (555-541 million years ago). Together, these assemblages are known as the Ediacaran biota. The vast majority of the fossils found in these assemblages share striking similarities with the forms that emerged during the Cambrian period. The Ediacaran biota was dominated by ancestral stem groups of the animal groups that appeared during the Cambrian period (Wan et. al, 2016).

---

The claim that the Ediacaran biota contained ancestral stem groups of the animal phyla that emerged in the Cambrian period is highly speculative and unproven. The article you cite by Wan et. al does not support this claim. They discovered a new genera of organisms they named Lantianella which was "morphologically, remarkably very similar to Flabellophyton", an organism that is interpreted as an algae. They were intrigued, however, at the possibility that Lantianella was related to, and perhaps a precursor of, animals called cnidarians due to their conical and pyramidal shape and the tentacle-like structure. Though, they noted that the tentacles could have been blades that algae use for photosynthesis (amazing that an incredibly complex system like photosynthesis could have appeared so quickly, but I guess that's another topic) and thus the similarity may be the result of convergent rather than divergent evolution. And although they were similar in shape and size to cnidarians (Corumbella and Conotubus) they noted that they had completely different structures. Compared to other cnidarians with the same similarity in conical structure, Protoconites and Thectardis, they noted that they were either much bigger or much smaller in size. And Lantianella differed from all of them by having a globose holdfast structure, which is characteristic of algae of the time. Another possible interpretation that was entertained, was that Lantianella was an early conulariid, a kind of marine animal, due to the tentacles, tripartate body plan, and pyramidal theca. But the authors note that this due to ONE specimen having a pyramidal theca. None of the other specimens had it, so they believed it was due to a preservation artifact. Also, the tripartate body plan was likely due to convergent evolution, they concluded, because of a lack of "diagnostic fusellar structures".

So, no, I wouldn't characterize this as "striking similarities" or that the Ediacaran biota "was dominated by ancestral stem groups of the animal groups that appeared during the Cambrian period." The authors of this article were intrigued by the possibility, but at this point it's all just unproven speculation and hypothesis. As the authors noted, "The phylogenetic interpretation of Lantianella remains uncertain....Lantianella remains an enigmatic Ediacaran fossil with intriguing but unproven affinity to cnidarian animals."

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

When it comes to scientific topics, I learn new things nearly daily and update my position on them. Your use of the word "evolution" regarding my position is actually an excellent description - and something I hope to continue doing.

---

Your position actually isn't "evolution", it's more like design. As in designed to always move away from God despite the evidence.

I can't decide if the design is intelligent, though.

---

....In all serious though, if I truly am designed to move away from God despite the evidence, that is kind of God's problem for designing me that way...

---

It's by your design, not God's. God did not make you a vegetable, incapable of will and choice.

Quote:

---

Several pre-Cambrian taxa have been identified as transitional forms or basal groups of animals:

• Rangeomorphs, such as Charnia and Fractofusus, are considered stem-eumetazoans and serve as transitional taxa for the most basal of animals, such as sponges and cnidarians. (Dunn et al., 2021)
• Haootia quadriformis has been shown to be a Cnidarian, which is the phylum containing jellyfish, hydras, and corals. (Liu et al., 2014)
• Dickinsonia has been identified as a basal bilaterian, which is a clade that includes all animals except those in the phyla Cnidaria and Porifera. (Gold et al., 2015)
• The oldest bilaterian resembling a worm, named Ikaria, has been found well before the Cambrian Explosion, suggesting that the first worms appeared before this period. (Evans et al., 2020)

---

The Ediacaran organisms have been known about for a while (except Ikaria) and there's been a lot of uncertaintity and debate over what they really are, whether fungi, plant, or animal. Some even propose that they belong in an entirely separate kingdom for themselves. So there's probably a lot of back and forth over how exactly to classify them, and the studies above are just scientists finding new ways to rationalize their classification as early or basal metazoans. In such a debated area, I doubt all the scientists will agree. For example, in the Haootia quadriformis study you cited, they were classified as a cnidarians because they found them to have a similar "putative" muscle arrangement as cnidarians. But according to L.S. Miranda. et. al 2015, they state: "detailed comparison of the reconstruction of the muscle organization...provides evidence against a close relationship between Haootia and Staurozoa (Cnidaria)." Also, regarding the Ikaria, the rocks they were found in weren't conclusively dated. In the Charnia study, they found its growth patterns to resemble more of that of metazoans, so they factored that into their own "Bayesian phylogenetic analysis" to come up with the conclusion that they were stem metazoans - not necessarily direct predecessors of the animals in the Cambrian, but perhaps a sister clade that branched off from those that were. And this is because Charnia lacks anything that resembles a gut, nervous system, eyes, etc. - structures seen in the Cambrian - and only "potential" evidence for muscles and sensory capability. I'm just willing to bet that other scientists won't agree, at least not fully, with these scientists' phylogenetic analysis.

All this just seems more like an attempt to resolve these organisms taxonomically in order to structure a framework for which to understand animal evolution, rather than provide actual evidence of a "transitional" form. But regardless, taxonomy isn't even the issue. If they want to call them the first metazoans, then so be it. But the fact remains, that these organisms are still very simple and primitive, and lacking anything that would precede the highly, highly complex and specialized structures seen in the Cambrian, like eyes, gut, nervous system, etc. The gap between them and what exploded onto the scene during the Cambrian is still HUGE, not to mention also the diversity. So can you really call them "transitional" forms? If you do, then we still need transitional forms to your transitional forms.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

When it comes to evolution, Jacket wants to follow evidence that moves him away from ID/Creator. When it comes to a historical Jesus, Jacket wants to disregard evidence so he can move away from Creator Jesus.

The only consistency is, he wants to move away from Christianity.

---

Lib, the theory of macro-evolution is one of the most well documented scientific theories of modern science, and has significant amount of corroborating evidence from many different fields. There are many scientists who consider it a stronger theory than gravity - while I understand that may sound silly, that is how much documented and peer reviewed evidence we have to support it....

....If someone gives me incredible evidence for something that is documented and peer reviewed, I am absolutely open to change my position on the subject.

---

Macro-evolution isn't necessarily what is being challenged, but rather the proposed naturalistic mechanism behind it, which always has been, and still remains an unproven inference.

You were given documented and peer reviewed evidence for the waiting time for two coordinated mutations in humans to appear using population genetics math. Did that alter your thinking in any way?