Theories - Origin of Life

[Gavin]

Scottie. You are, of course, free to be selective in what and in whom you choose to believe. Lots of people have said lots of things, not all of which is true. Talk, as the saying goes, is cheap. Gould had his opinions that not everyone shares. I'd be interested in seeing some support for:

very complicated phyla appeared in Cambrian strata without any precursors. In other words no prior speciation, they just arrived.

It's a bold statement that needs some backup. Do you have any evidence that these phyla "just arrived".

[JackBean]

scottie, you gave me no other choice, since you still refuses to answer, I have locked this topic. If will you ever change your mind, let me know.

[scottie]

Canolan
Thank you for unlocking this thread.

Whether it's humans, Trilobites, Brachiopods or any other form of life,there is no scientific answer.
There are only hypotheses.

However from the evidence of the Cambrian strata complex multi=celled creatures first appeared around 550 million years or so, ago according to conventional dating. There is no evidence of precursors.

Certainly no evidence of human fossils have been found in this strata as far as I am aware.
I can only conclude that humans first appeared sometime after that.

Gavin
I will be able to respond to your question in the next post. It will be a little later as I have to be elsewhere for the next few hours or so.

[JackBean]

so humans evolved from "lower creatures"?

[scottie]

so humans evolved from "lower creatures"?

I have been arguing against this. I thought that point has been well established.

I don't accept humans evolved from any other life form.
One of the lines lines of evidence to support my argument is the fossil data from the cambrian radiation.
The sudden arrival of multi celled organisms with basic individual body plans.
After some 150 years of searching no precursors have been found in any lower strata, which of course mitigates against common ancestry.
Without common ancestry where does macro evolutionary theory, in whatever form, stand?

[scottie]

Gavin
You raise a valid point regarding Stephen Gould’s view of Punctuated Equilibrium. There are of course several others with their own hypotheses as to how the process of macro evolution works.

Carl Woese with his hypothesis of an early era of considerable Horizontal gene transfer.
Simon Conway Morris with his idea of “front loaded” evolution
Lynn Margulis -- Endosymbiotic theory
James Shapiro -- Natural genetic Engineering
I could keep on with such leading names as, Allen Orr, Daniel Dennett, PZ Myers, Michael Ruse Coyne etc etc, All tearing lumps out of each other. Their email exchanges can be quite vitriolic at times.
Freeman Dyson and Richard Dawkins can’t even agree with each other as to what Darwin’s theory actually is.
These of course are all evolutionary scientists and philosophers.

So who is right?
They can’t all be right.

That is why I have repeatedly asked the question without response, as to what particular version of evolutionary theory ones opposing me subscribe to.

Well under all this rhetoric there is a body of evidence that no one has been able to explain.

In part I am referring of course to the Phyla radiation in the Cambrian strata.
This is solid evidence.
You appear to ask the question if I can prove the non existence of these precursors.
Well how do you prove something doesn’t exist if it has never been found.

However Erwin’s paper that I have referred to does provide some interesting new thinking on the subject.

[JackBean]

so humans were created about 40 thousands years ago?

[Gavin]

Scottie,

I guess you didn't follow my suggestion of doing some research into the Cambrian explosion (avoiding any sources from religious organisations). I still encourage you to do so, but I'll just make a few pertinent points here:

1) very few organisms fossilise, especially those without hard parts, which means,
2) the fossil record has gaps, and always will, because, in part, of 1),
3) gaps in the fossil record do not represent the falsification of evolution, they just represent gaps in the fossil record.

You appear to ask the question if I can prove the non existence of these precursors.
Well how do you prove something doesn’t exist if it has never been found.

Exactly! In science, falsification requires evidence, not lack of evidence. As the old and worn saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When all the fossils that have ever formed have been found, get back to us. And all the parts of the tree of life that strongly support common ancestry (and not just animals) mean what, exactly?

That is why I have repeatedly asked the question without response, as to what particular version of evolutionary theory ones opposing me subscribe to.

All views of scientific evolutionary theory oppose your view of creation. Different opinions exist because science is not autocratic. Science is a work in progress, and always will be.

[Crucible]

Scottie,


All views of scientific evolutionary theory oppose your view of creation. Different opinions exist because science is not autocratic. Science is a work in progress, and always will be.

Does science investigate Creation ? Can you expand on how views of scientific evolutionary theory oppose it ?
Would you view the kind of evolutionary science you are talking about, as a battleground where opposing views are to be kept out by mud slinging, marginalization tactics, name calling, and deprecation of character ?

[Gavin]

Does science investigate Creation ? Can you expand on how views of scientific evolutionary theory oppose it ?

You have come on this forum because you believe that evolution is false. The onus is not on us to defend evolution. A decent library will do that. The onus is on you to falsify it.

[Crucible]

Does science investigate Creation ? Can you expand on how views of scientific evolutionary theory oppose it ?

You have come on this forum because you believe that evolution is false. The onus is not on us to defend evolution. A decent library will do that. The onus is on you to falsify it.

That's absolutely false. Evolution is self-evident. I do not believe in Creation or ID.

The answer was not responsive to any of the questions asked. Noted.

[Gavin]

I do not believe in Creation or ID.

Good for you.

The answer was not responsive to any of the questions asked.

Okay, okay. The existence of gods cannot be falsified by science, but little evidence supports it. I have no desire to present the evidence supporting evolution. As I said, any decent library can do that.