Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
Glad they got that bulb changed.
And it's just Theory which ever way you look at it.
And you're a "degree level mathematics student" I hope you know that Mr Hawking's got things wrong now and then and he knows a bit more then you
No it really isn't. Scientific theory = fact. Stop misusing the nomenclature.
There exists an entire book based on assumptions, it's called the Bible. I can explain a lot of this to you with the face to face meeting that I've offered numerous times.
Well how are we supposed to know the next stage in evolution? That's impossible, there are far too many variables.
There are no "stages". There won't be a "new" human ever. You fail to understand evolutionary theory
This thread appears to have now been reduced to the least common denominators and needs locking I think.
Branches? Like the domestic moggie or the lion? Do you think those cats are not related to a distant common ancestor of the cheetah?
As for the Cambrian Explosion, you'll need to find someone more knowledgeable as to not put their foot in it, which seems to be what most Creationist seem to love
What I do know is fossil records are as good as the fossils we have found, the Cambrian period (and times before) were a damn long time ago. That little fossil records exist before perhaps has a lot to do with that. Fossils are formed in a limited set of conditions. Climate change can also have a major hand in evolution (and the preservation of fossils or lack of). In increase in oxygen in the water/air due to plant activity would support larger life forms than were possible before. Being bigger sea beastie than your peers is a definite advantage when there is plenty of food about - being a faster sea beastie than the big sea beastie is an advantage, climbing out of the water that's full of beasties is an advantage etc.
Science challenges these questions until there is a better answer, and then it challenges that too
Yep of course I agree with the cat family point. These seem to be variations over considerable time within a particular animal type.
The Cambrian issue appears to be more against the common ancestry idea. Some argue that almost all of the phyla types known today were discovered in the fossil record. Before the Cambrian period you would have found things like algae or sponges, then all of a sudden all this complexity without any ancestral trace. Darwin was quoted as saying that "nature takes no leaps" yet the Cambrian shows the total opposite.
It was always going to happen. Numerous people on this forum have this mind frame of always wanting to sabotage any chance of a decent/thought-provoking conversation with mind-numbingly stupid comments. And it just degenerates into people barking at each other eventually... happy days.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Assumptions based upon observations. Which is different to reading an old book and assuming it is factually correct.
I like the Cambrian event. Theists assume it depreciates the idea of evolution and supports creationism .. it actually does neither.
Considerable time? Under 7 million years separate the domestic moggie and the cheetah There is a huge physical difference between them. Remember these are not spawning fish or invertebrates, they are mammals. They neither breed relatively quickly or in huge numbers
It isn't only theists that doubt Darwinian evolution or it's newer variants!
What is your interpretation of Cambrian fossil record? It certainly appears to turn the expected Darwinian pattern upside down as the man himself conceded.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
You already know the interpretations of Cambrian fossils. They have been posted multiple times in this thread. Unless you ignored them.
No it doesn't, not in the slightest. It's a period of evolution over 20million years.
With higher rates of fossilisation due to more skeletal struction and movement away from soft bodies animals.
As we find more and more fossils we get a better picture.
But in no way does it go against evolution.
But then again, why stop telling lies this late in a thread. Blind as you scared that if you can't awnser questions it'll shake your faith. Well you can't awnser questions, you lie about science, even though I bet you and the others actually understand it. But are to scared to accept it.
The Cambrian period some estimate lasted only 5 million years but during that time there appeared the vast majority of phyla. This isn't the same type of transition between cheetah and moggie. Darwin predicted the slow gradual development over time. Instead we have this sudden explosion, followed by slower changes with time.
More lies upon lies.
And no it did not spawn most phyla.
In fact just read this
http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion#detail
Sorry, where did I even mention faith?
Darwinism predicted a bottom up idea where there were small differences -> larger differences over time. It seems rather obvious from the Cambrian record that this isn't the case.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
This is becomibg repetitive. Darwin's theory was not complete. He made inferences based upon the information and fossils he had.
Can you (this should be easy) give me one factor which could slow down or speed up evolutionary process?
If not it will be clear you have ignored pretty much every post in this thread except your own.