Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[Glaucus]

Rather than just call me a liar each could you add your own explanation rather than linking me to one website? After all, you accused me of posting from some website yourself.

Do you not have answers to the requirement for all the genetic information to control these new creations?

You are a liar as shower many times in this thread.

What information do you want, let me guess something which no one can provide.
The awnser is pretty much everyone, thinks there is enough time for the "explosion" coupled with the lack of fossil record, which people like you use in alone sided argument.

And it's not just one website, it has 10a of references, but I doubt you'll go read them either.

You just have your fingers in your ears again, going it can't happen, 5million years it can't happen. Despite that all being bogus.

 

[d_brennen]

Genetic information is carried down the generations of each species, there is no case for there "not being enough" genetic information, multicellular life existed for a long time before the Cambrian, fossil records are poor but improving (it was like ages ago and all) and the biggest myth of all, not all forms of life as we know it now were defined in the Cambrian period and indeed some that are attributed to the Cambrian may well be found to predate it yet. As recently as 2004 bony fish have been unearthed that are dated early Cambrian. They didn't appear fully formed, did they?

 

[Brookert]

Rather than just call me a liar each could you add your own explanation rather than linking me to one website? After all, you accused me of posting from some website yourself.

Do you not have answers to the requirement for all the genetic information to control these new creations?

Biggest hypocritical statement ever! Where's the source on this darwin statement you made earlier?

 

[Raikiri]

There exists a number of assumptions in Science.

There exists inference based on observable facts. If the inferred data is proven false then the model is changed based on those findings.

Infer: To conclude from evidence or premises.

Assume: Suppose to be the case, without proof: "afraid of what people are going to assume".

You see the difference?

 

[Jason2]

No, because I am free to leave the country.

You aren't free to leave your religion, unless you want to go to hell.

Then you'll become a slave to a foreign countries laws.

Yes, I am free to leave Christ. But without him all die.

 

[ringo747]

You are a liar as shower many times in this thread.

What information do you want, let me guess something which no one can provide.
The awnser is pretty much everyone, thinks there is enough time for the "explosion" coupled with the lack of fossil record, which people like you use in alone sided argument.

And it's not just one website, it has 10a of references, but I doubt you'll go read them either.

You just have your fingers in your ears again, going it can't happen, 5million years it can't happen. Despite that all being bogus.

Let me get something straight. You are calling me a liar which suggests I am not telling the truth. Has this topic really be confirmed as truth?

For one thing I'd be keen to learn more from the genetics side of things.

Given such a relatively short time frame would you have expected to see some non-beneficial mutations in the fossil record? I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm simply asking for input on the question.

 

[Shayper]

Then you'll become a slave to a foreign countries laws.

Yes, I am free to leave Christ. But without him all die.

CITATION NEEDED.

 

[Brookert]

CITATION NEEDED.

'Faith'

 

[deuse]

Not really. I make up my own decisions based on the available evidence. I don't have faith that science explains everything, I accept that it is fallible.

Show me where I have faith or belief

You have faith when you do most things in life i.e you cross a road in the belief\faith\hope that the person in the car
you can see won't put his\her foot down and kill you.

Yes you will use your eyes and ears to cross the road safely but you never know.
Wish I was better at this kind of thing.....

 

[Glaucus]

Let me get something straight. You are calling me a liar which suggests I am not telling the truth. Has this topic really be confirmed as truth?

For one thing I'd be keen to learn more from the genetics side of things.

Given such a relatively short time frame would you have expected to see some non-beneficial mutations in the fossil record? I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm simply asking for input on the question.

It's not a short time frame, it's only a short time frame if you lie, which you keep doing. From 5million years to the pretty much all was formed in the period statement. Neither are true and both are lies.
You aren't interested at all. If you were you would go do some reading and then change your tune. Rather than just keep bleating out lies.

Read d_brennen post for a start.

 

[ringo747]

Biggest hypocritical statement ever! Where's the source on this darwin statement you made earlier?

In his very own book I believe.

 

[Glaucus]

What a surprise, belive. Oh wait you don't know? You didn't check the source?

 

[Raikiri]

Given such a relatively short time frame would you have expected to see some non-beneficial mutations in the fossil record? I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm simply asking for input on the question.

Such as the wide range of animals that fed on microbial mats being killed off due to the evolution of burrowing animals destroying said microbial mats during the Cambrian period?

What about a number of other species that didn't survive past the Cambrian period? Clearly their mutations weren't that beneficial.

 

[ringo747]

It's not a short time frame, it's only a short time frame if you lie, which you keep doing. From 5million years to the pretty much all was formed in the period statement. Neither are true and both are lies.
You aren't interested at all. If you were you would go do some reading and then change your tune. Rather than just keep bleating out lies.

Read d_brennen post for a start.

What's your take on why it is called an explosion? It would suggest to me something of suddenness, abruptness? Regardless of the time taken, it appears to be contrary to what Darwin expected.

 

[ringo747]

What a surprise, belive. Oh wait you don't know? You didn't check the source?

I do know, yes.

 

[d_brennen]

It's in my copy of the Evolution of Species (6th)

Darwin did not have today's records, equipment or methods, but he was an incredible scientist, and humble too. He was not afraid of being wrong, it didn't trouble him in the way of vanity that is certain.

 

[Pudney]

What a surprise, belive. Oh wait you don't know? You didn't check the source?

This thread is ridiculous on both sides. It's becoming an embarrassment to the forum with the way people are responding to each other now.

And in defence of Ringo, if the Darwin "statement" everyone keeps referring to is the one where he said "I was under the impression", that's hardly a passionate declaration that what he's saying is fact.

 

[Glaucus]

What's your take on why it is called an explosion? It would suggest to me something of suddenness, abruptness? Regardless of the time taken, it appears to be contrary to what Darwin expected.

No, it is not sudden, it also "misleading" well for people like you. It's a bit like the not so dark, dark ages.

It's not sudden at all. It's just a coined phrase.
It's not country to what Darwin said at all, show us some evidence off this? You can't can you.

It shows a gap in fossils and as we find more it changes and dates get longer. It can also who a change in the rate of fossils produced, due to change in animal structure.
It can also show an increase in change, note increase. Nothing sudden about 10s of millions of years. This is seen several times.

 

[Raikiri]

What's your take on why it is called an explosion? It would suggest to me something of suddenness, abruptness? Regardless of the time taken, it appears to be contrary to what Darwin expected.

That in happened in a relatively quick period of time. It doesn't disprove anything.

It doesn't matter if it's contrary to what one person thought to be true given the evidence that was currently available, Darwin wasn't infallible. Darwin came up with the initial ideas behind the theory of evolution but our understanding has been greatly improved upon by many others since.

I do know, yes.

How do you know?

You don't have the book sitting right there do you, so you're inferring that it came from the book based on the evidence that suggests it to be true.

 

[ringo747]

No, it is not sudden, it also "misleading" well for people like you. It's a bit like the not so dark, dark ages.

Ok, it must have been called an explosion just because it sounded good then.

It's not sudden at all. It's just a coined phrase.
It's not country to what Darwin said at all, show us some evidence off this? You can't can you.

It shows a gap in fossils and as we find more it changes and dates get longer. It can also who a change in the rate of fossils produced, due to change in animal structure.
It can also show an increase in change, note increase. Nothing sudden about 10s of millions of years. This is seen several times.

It's quite simple, Darwins tree showed small gradual changes, getting larger with time. The Cambrian fossil records apparently show the opposite i.e. large changes with the appearance of totally new body architectures with no ancestral trace.

Before the supposed sudden appearance of these animal types there were simple organisms. There doesn't seem to have been anything in between. I think this is where the 'sudden' comes in.