Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt (page 11)

cognisonance

SCIENCE and me expects you to prove full blown Darwinian Evolution, early life is your best (clear easy to see) shot at proving it

I don't have time to fully respond to your latest response, but I will say this. Why is this the best shot at proving that evolution happened and common ancestry? There is already an abundance of "clear easy to see" evidence that shows that evolution happened that come from different fields of scientific study that indepenedenly verify that evolutuion happened:

Dna [pylogenetic analysis, psuedogenes, retroviruses, human chromosome 2, nearly universal genetic code, etc.]
Embryology (human embryo's with tail bugs, dolphins with hindlimb buds)
Biogeography (look into Marsipuls)
Transitional forms in periods later than the pre-Cambrian (evolutionary prediction of where to find fish/amphibian transitional form resulting in the discovery of Tiakaaak)
Vestiges and atavisms (Ostrich wings, human's with tails, whales with vestigial pelvis/hind-leg bones)

Evolution indeed has happened. It seems more like you are wanting to use the pre-cambrian/cambrian era not becuase it should be easy to see evolution, but precisely becuase it would be hard to see the common ancestry.

If what you are wanting to do is find evidence that would completly blow common ancestry out of the water in the pre-cambrian strata (since this is what you are focusing on) would be to find avian or mammilian fossils in that strata (i.e. something that common ancestry says is impossible to exisit at that time period).

QC

Cog,

You want to tap dance your way through this Evolution debacle with bluster bluffing that ‘there’s all this evidence.’ Nice try, but unconvincing.

My insisting on you presenting early life evidence to prove the original CORE Evolution hypothesis is proper. Early life SCALE (lab small, easy to assemble and examine) is the ONLY bullet proof way to make your case.

Precambrian strata has produced plentiful soft-tissue fossils and micro-fossils finds; which means it’s fully capable of providing the fossil record time-laps snapshots, micro to macro, proving Evolution. So, lack of time-laps fossils means the theory is incorrect. The spirit of science appreciates when a theory is correct or incorrect. Incorrect simply means there’s a better answer. That's the point!

This better answer allows “original life measurement technologies” to develop capturing the dynamic nature of life emergent properties arising from interacting components etc. Then species-specific variation can be explained by considering this fundamental MEASURE framework. That's how REAL science methodology works.

Evolution is not science; it’s an ideology (an alternate secular world view, a philosophy).

I agree DNA and Epigenetics gets us closer to this framework for understanding and measuring life’s secrets.

Others agree with you on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10&NR=1&feature=endscreen (3 min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bqQbqpima-c (2 min)

John_Mann

So the languages did not evolved too? Was just a poof in Babel's Tower?

My dear, evolution is everywhere. Not in biology, but in linguistics, economics, cosmology and computing, to name a few.

The darwinian algorithm is just amazing!

Heritability + Mutation + Natural Selection

You can make an entire universe full of life with that.

John_Mann

*Not JUST in biology....

John_Mann

If something is under the darwinian algorithm, that thing will be under evolution.

Does not matter if the thing is a virus or a proto-language.

never a jw

QC

From the get-go, Meyer's credential expose him as a bias source for solving the Creation/evolution debate. R. Dawkins would also be a partial source. Also, since you and I are no experts in this discussion, deferring to the experts who are not involved in the debate would be the best way to go. What percentage of evolutionary biologists, genetecists, geologists, paleontologists and other experts in relevant fields do you think would support either of the two mutually exclusive position? Pro-creationists (according to Genesis)?? Pro-evolution (as explained in the most recent scientific research)??

John_Mann

{R. Dawkins would also be a partial source.}

Dawkins is a biologist.

There's no doubt in biology about evolution like there's no doubt in physics about gravity.

LisaRose

Good strategy, ignore the vast majority of scientists, and the scientific findings over the last hundred years. Ignore ever mounting DNA evidence. Find one book that confirms your religious beliefs, then argue like hell that it must be true.

I used to do that when I was a dub, but now I realize how ridiculous that was. I looked at everything objectively, and could no longer ignore the evidence that life evolved.

Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

Share this