How To Define "Evolution"?

[orogenicman]

Quite often, when I start discussing evolution with its defenders, it comes down to belief, not science. I always hope to find that rare person that actually has a modicum of understanding of evolution so that it would be possible to actually discuss it rationally.

Unfortunately, you are not that person.

Well, Mr. - Miss. Windbag, whatever, if you want to have a discussion about evolution, starting out as you have here is probably not the best approach., so it comes as no surprise to me that you have not had any successful discussions on the matter.

Did my honest assessment of your level of education on a very difficult subject offend you?

Well, if your assessment contained a modicum of honesty or was even remotely accurate, you might have a point.

I suggest you start educating by yourself by learning that natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is the end result of evolution.

Natural selection

Erm, you actually thought that that web site supports your thesis that "natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is an end result of evolution"? Oh my. Since you are obviously so much smarter than I am (cough, cough), you'll have to explain how that works.

 

[orogenicman]

Faith is not belief in something that is not in evidence, that is delusion.

Faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I suppose you glossed over 2b, eh?



Duh.



This is true. There is no proof that dark matter exists. That's because science is not about proofs. Proofs fall to the realm of mathematics and philosophy. Science is evidence-based. And if it is evidence you want, there certainly is evidence for dark energy, albeit, indirect evidence. But don't just argue from the god of the gaps. Physics is heavily concentrated on trying to understand exactly what dark matter is, so stay tuned.



I would tend to agree. Dark matter makes more sense than unicorn farts.

2b - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". I hate to break it to you, but I have no idea what you thought you were trying to explain, but it seems to me that you walked yourself into a corner here. I say that because as you explain it, faith certainly does appear to have remarkable similarity to delusion.

Come back when you grow a brain.

And we are back to the issue that prevents you from having a conversation with - well, pretty much anyone.

I skipped over 2b? Would it help next time if I point to the specific thing I am discussing in order facilitate your non average intelligence to follow my train of though?

Next lesson, the difference between evidence and proof.

Not necessary. Here's how it works. I place a pencil in my hand. I drop the pencil. The pencil lands on the floor. That is evidence for gravity. There is no faith involved in believing that in a gravity field, if I release an object I am holding in my hand, it will follow the path designated for it by the gravity well in which it resides. It is evidence-based. It is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable. On the other hand, "God did it" is not evidence based. It is faith-based, revelation-based. There is no experiment one can conduct that could ever satisfy the statement. It is not predictable, repeatable, or falsifiable. And as Thomas Paine aptly pointed out:

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

Personal revelation is the purview of religion, not science. The purview of science is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.

 

[Synthaholic]

There is so very much lacking in your education.....the definition of 'plagerize' as well?


Well...OK...

Here is your tutorial:
pla·gia·rize
/&#712;pl&#257;j&#601;&#716;r&#299;z/
Verb
Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own


So....when the source is identified following the quote, it cannot be called 'plagiarized.'


More reading in your formative years would have given you a broader vocabulary, and a better grasp of the language.


You're welcome.

Correct. PoliticalChic is not a plagiarist, she's a cut-n-paster. Not an original thought in her head. Which is why she identifies with Supergirl. When you have all that blunt force, who needs to think?


PoliticalChic, while you are cutting and pasting from extreme Right-Wing sources, devoid of the knowledge in the subject to be able to argue extemporaneously, our friend orogenicman clearly is well-versed in this science. Post #2 was especially informative.

Why don't you take this opportunity to learn a few things instead of arguing out of your league?

I note that you haven't confronted the OP...

No free time from your high stress job at Dairy Queen?

Those Blizzards® ain't gonna make themselves!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Correct. PoliticalChic is not a plagiarist, she's a cut-n-paster. Not an original thought in her head. Which is why she identifies with Supergirl. When you have all that blunt force, who needs to think?


PoliticalChic, while you are cutting and pasting from extreme Right-Wing sources, devoid of the knowledge in the subject to be able to argue extemporaneously, our friend orogenicman clearly is well-versed in this science. Post #2 was especially informative.

Why don't you take this opportunity to learn a few things instead of arguing out of your league?

I note that you haven't confronted the OP...

No free time from your high stress job at Dairy Queen?

Those Blizzards® ain't gonna make themselves!

Pretty soon there will be a robot that makes them. You just put the money in as you do the pop machine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, Mr. - Miss. Windbag, whatever, if you want to have a discussion about evolution, starting out as you have here is probably not the best approach., so it comes as no surprise to me that you have not had any successful discussions on the matter.

Did my honest assessment of your level of education on a very difficult subject offend you?

Well, if your assessment contained a modicum of honesty or was even remotely accurate, you might have a point.

I suggest you start educating by yourself by learning that natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is the end result of evolution.

Natural selection

Erm, you actually thought that that web site supports your thesis that "natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is an end result of evolution"? Oh my. Since you are obviously so much smarter than I am (cough, cough), you'll have to explain how that works.

I am sorry, I forgot who I was talking to, reading 215 words is apparently to much of a challenge.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.

It isn't your fault your teachers lied, they were never taught how it works either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not necessary. Here's how it works. I place a pencil in my hand. I drop the pencil. The pencil lands on the floor. That is evidence for gravity.

Actually, if you understood anything about the way the universe works, you would know that all dropping a pencil proves is that you are under acceleration. But I do appreciate your efforts.

By the way, if you believe that, I have a brand new bridge to sell you, it isn't even open yet.

There is no faith involved in believing that in a gravity field, if I release an object I am holding in my hand, it will follow the path designated for it by the gravity well in which it resides.

Why are you using words when you just clearly demonstrated that you don't understand them? Is it an effort to appear intelligent?

It isn't working.

It is evidence-based. It is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable.

What you just described is exactly what evolution is not.

On the other hand, "God did it" is not evidence based. It is faith-based, revelation-based. There is no experiment one can conduct that could ever satisfy the statement.

First, I never said God did anything. All I did was point out that you do not understand evolution.

Come to think of it, you don't understand gravity either, which is a lot easier to grasp then evolution.

It is not predictable, repeatable, or falsifiable. And as Thomas Paine aptly pointed out:

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

Personal revelation is the purview of religion, not science. The purview of science is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.

Sounds a lot like your attempt to defend evolution. You did not obtain the knowledge yourself, you relied on reading something one person said about what another person did. I suggest you read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," at least then you will be getting your knowledge from the person who had the revelation.

By the way, if you think science has nothing to do with revealing knowledge, how do you explain the entire field of nuclear physics? How about quantum mechanics? And if science ever nails down gravity and ties it in with everything else that will reveal quite a few things about the structure of the universe.

 

[orogenicman]

Not necessary. Here's how it works. I place a pencil in my hand. I drop the pencil. The pencil lands on the floor. That is evidence for gravity.

Actually, if you understood anything about the way the universe works, you would know that all dropping a pencil proves is that you are under acceleration. But I do appreciate your efforts.

Being a geologist and an amateur astronomer, I'd say that I do understand gravity quite well. I find it interesting that in your response you left out the fact that that the acceleration is "due to gravity"!

This is the gravity due to the Earth to the object with mass m
r is the distance from the center of the mass m and the center of the earth
F is the gravitational force
G is gravitational constant:

F = G m/ r^2

If we say only the gravity force, So net force = ma
F = G m / r^2 = m a
a = G / r^2

where a is the acceleration due to gravity. Next.

By the way, if you believe that, I have a brand new bridge to sell you, it isn't even open yet.

Gee, I hope it isn't one you built, because with your poor understanding of gravity, damn.

There is no faith involved in believing that in a gravity field, if I release an object I am holding in my hand, it will follow the path designated for it by the gravity well in which it resides.

Why are you using words when you just clearly demonstrated that you don't understand them? Is it an effort to appear intelligent?

It isn't working.

Obviously you don't get it. Do I need to repeat myself?

What you just described is exactly what evolution is not.

Excuse me while I laugh out loud. lol. There. I feel much better now.

First, I never said God did anything. All I did was point out that you do not understand evolution.

Come to think of it, you don't understand gravity either, which is a lot easier to grasp then evolution.

Right, that's why I am published in the journal of invertebrate Paleontology, and you are not:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It is not predictable, repeatable, or falsifiable. And as Thomas Paine aptly pointed out:

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

Personal revelation is the purview of religion, not science. The purview of science is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.

Sounds a lot like your attempt to defend evolution. You did not obtain the knowledge yourself, you relied on reading something one person said about what another person did. I suggest you read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," at least then you will be getting your knowledge from the person who had the revelation.

Darwin was the first word on evolution (actually, he wasn't even the first), not the last. You didn't know this? Huh.

By the way, if you think science has nothing to do with revealing knowledge, how do you explain the entire field of nuclear physics? How about quantum mechanics? And if science ever nails down gravity and ties it in with everything else that will reveal quite a few things about the structure of the universe.

The difference between religion and science is that unlike religion, the knowledge that science reveals is NOT first person in nature. You don't have to take my word for it. You can conduct an experiment and refute or verify my claim or do the same for anyone else's, including your own. Got anything like that?

 

[CookedOnChronic]

Well, none of that is correct. Who taught you how to write, by the way? I only ask because, damn!

First of all, you don't get to re-define terms. Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution. And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous). Moreover, Stephen Meyer? Really? O-M-G. EPIC FAIL.

Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits. In the first case, man is the agent producing change. In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change. A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection. In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion. But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result. But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent. How weird is that!

As you said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Being a geologist and an amateur astronomer, I'd say that I do understand gravity quite well. I find it interesting that in your response you left out the fact that that the acceleration is "due to gravity"!

You study dirt, and you think that proves you understand relativity?

You claimed that dropping a pencil is evidence of gravity, it isn't. It is entirely possible that you are in a closed system that is accelerating in the direction directly opposite to the one in which the pencil falls. A good example of this is if you dropped that same pencil aboard the old shuttle when it was accelerating into orbit. It would fall toward the rear of the shuttle, even if you did it when the shuttle appeared to be upside down to someone standing on the surface of the Earth. That is because, despite your massive ignorance, it actually takes less energy to launch something straight up 230 miles than to put it into orbit with the International Space Station.

It is also why when you drop that pencil on the ISS it doesn't fall toward the center of the Earth, despite the fact that there is plenty of gravity up there.

This is the gravity due to the Earth to the object with mass m
r is the distance from the center of the mass m and the center of the earth
F is the gravitational force
G is gravitational constant:

F = G m/ r^2

If we say only the gravity force, So net force = ma
F = G m / r^2 = m a
a = G / r^2

where a is the acceleration due to gravity. Next.

Wow, if I had read this before I posted the first part of my reply I could have saved myself all that typing. On the other hand, I wouldn't have had the joy of bitch slapping you for your ignorance twice in one post.

The equation you want here is F=mMG/R^2

F=Force due to the gravity between the two objects.
m=Mass of the first object.
M=Mass of the second object.
G=Gravitational constant of 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2
R is the distance between the two objects.

Want to try and teach me again?

Please?

Gee, I hope it isn't one you built, because with your poor understanding of gravity, damn.

As opposed to yours, which totally ignores the fact that it takes two different masses before gravity even exists?

Obviously you don't get it. Do I need to repeat myself?

This from the guy that is using an equation that will come up with the wrong answer every single time because he left out one of the variables.

Then again, you are one of the dirt people.

Excuse me while I laugh out loud. lol. There. I feel much better now.

Not nearly as good as I do, but keep laughing.

Right, that's why I am published in the journal of invertebrate Paleontology, and you are not:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Even if that link actually worked, and is actually a link to something you wrote, all it proves is that you paid to have you article published.

[FONT=&quot]Articles[/FONT][FONT=&quot] are [/FONT][FONT=&quot]up to 40 printed pages. Authors are asked to pay as much of the page charges as they can for articles of all lengths. Paying extra page charges is mandatory for articles that run 26–40 pages. Check with editorial staff for the current page rate charged by Allen Press.[/FONT]

Journal of Paleontology Instructions for Authors

Damn, I actually know how scientific journals work, and know how to find their submission guidelines. Could it be that I am actually a writer?

The difference between us is I don't pay to get my work published, and real people read it.

Darwin was the first word on evolution (actually, he wasn't even the first), not the last. You didn't know this? Huh.

I didn't know about all the people from Anaximander to Lamarck? Where the fuck do you think Darwin got the stupid idea to call it natural selection? Why do you think I suggested you read his book?

The difference between religion and science is that unlike religion, the knowledge that science reveals is NOT first person in nature. You don't have to take my word for it. You can conduct an experiment and refute or verify my claim or do the same for anyone else's, including your own. Got anything like that?

I hate to burst your bubble, but you cannot use philosophy to argue that science is better than religion. It becomes even more difficult when you don't properly use the terms.

 

[orogenicman]

Being a geologist and an amateur astronomer, I'd say that I do understand gravity quite well. I find it interesting that in your response you left out the fact that that the acceleration is "due to gravity"!

You study dirt, and you think that proves you understand relativity?

OMG, really? Because we are talking about dropping friggin pencils in Earth's gravity field, not refracting the light of galaxies around other galaxies. We aren't talking about relativity here, pal (we are talking about Newtonian physics), but thanks for squirming so loudly at my answer that you woke up my neighbors even though you are somewhere else on the planet.

You claimed that dropping a pencil is evidence of gravity, it isn't. It is entirely possible that you are in a closed system that is accelerating in the direction directly opposite to the one in which the pencil falls. A good example of this is if you dropped that same pencil aboard the old shuttle when it was accelerating into orbit. It would fall toward the rear of the shuttle, even if you did it when the shuttle appeared to be upside down to someone standing on the surface of the Earth. That is because, despite your massive ignorance, it actually takes less energy to launch something straight up 230 miles than to put it into orbit with the International Space Station.

Except that I am NOT on the space shuttle, or the ISS, or in orbit around your mother's vagina. I am sitting here on the surface of the Earth, a large rocky world with lots of mass that has an acceleration due to gravity of 9.776 m/s2 near the equator or at high elevation to 9.832 m/s2 at the poles. There is nothing unambiguous or make believe about these numbers. And here where I am sitting, due to the gravity that exists on THIS EARTH, the pencil falls towards and strikes the ground. Now, it may strike somewhere else in your make believe world, or whatever planet on which you live, but here on this planet, that's what it does.

It is also why when you drop that pencil on the ISS it doesn't fall toward the center of the Earth, despite the fact that there is plenty of gravity up there.

Well, it is apparent from your lame attempt at obfuscation that you are 5 cans shy of a six pack. You have my sympathy.

This is the gravity due to the Earth to the object with mass m
r is the distance from the center of the mass m and the center of the earth
F is the gravitational force
G is gravitational constant:

F = G m/ r^2

If we say only the gravity force, So net force = ma
F = G m / r^2 = m a
a = G / r^2

where a is the acceleration due to gravity. Next.

Wow, if I had read this before I posted the first part of my reply I could have saved myself all that typing. On the other hand, I wouldn't have had the joy of bitch slapping you for your ignorance twice in one post.

The equation you want here is F=mMG/R^2

F=Force due to the gravity between the two objects.
m=Mass of the first object.
M=Mass of the second object.
G=Gravitational constant of 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2
R is the distance between the two objects.

Want to try and teach me again?

Please?

Yes, you are correct, the first equation should have included a large M for the mass of the Earth. The entire point of this exercise, which you are intentionally skirting, being that faith doesn't enter into it. Not even remotely. It is testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable. You can use it to build bridges, sky scrapers, and launch rockets to Saturn if you want to. Has anyone ever done that by simply saying "god did it"? Of course not.

Even if that link actually worked, and is actually a link to something you wrote, all it proves is that you paid to have you article published.

Try it. The link works. The research was paid for by a grant from the National Science Foundation. And yes, I was one of the co-authors. I may be many things, but I am not known to be a liar.

http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.o...act?related-urls=yes&legid=gsjpaleo;74/6/1072

Darwin was the first word on evolution (actually, he wasn't even the first), not the last. You didn't know this? Huh.

I didn't know about all the people from Anaximander to Lamarck? Where the fuck do you think Darwin got the stupid idea to call it natural selection? Why do you think I suggested you read his book?

Because you don't have any imagination? The point is that 150 years+ have elapsed since Darwin wrote his book. We know a lot of things that Darwin didn't know. We have mountains more data than he did. And yet, much of what he wrote (but not all) Is still valid today. Still, the theory has been much refined from those early days. Obfuscate all you care to, you are not going to squirm your way out of the fact that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

The difference between religion and science is that unlike religion, the knowledge that science reveals is NOT first person in nature. You don't have to take my word for it. You can conduct an experiment and refute or verify my claim or do the same for anyone else's, including your own. Got anything like that?

I hate to burst your bubble, but you cannot use philosophy to argue that science is better than religion. It becomes even more difficult when you don't properly use the terms.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I didn't say that science is better than religion. I said that they were intrinsically different. But since you brought it up, when it comes to conducting empirical investigations, science trumps religion EVERY SINGLE TIME. And that is not a philosophical argument. It is a fact. Refute that, and you may have a convert (clue - don't hold your breath).

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it.

Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.

 

[orogenicman]

LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it.

Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.

Indeed. Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.

 

[orogenicman]

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it.

Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.

Indeed. Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.

You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.



Wise up:
You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......

 

[orogenicman]

LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it.

Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.

Indeed. Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.

You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.



Wise up:
You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......

In your dreams, princess. Oh look, fossil -

 

[editec]

Where did all those fossils of species of plants and animals that no longer exist come from?

Why are there no remains of modern animals and plants found trapped in the same geological places as these fossils of extinct animals and plants?

Why did GOD intelligently design these fossil records?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indeed. Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.

You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.



Wise up:
You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......

In your dreams, princess. Oh look, fossil -

The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.


Lies mean that your position is indefensible.

Isn't that true?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where did all those fossils of species of plants and animals that no longer exist come from?

Why are there no remains of modern animals and plants found trapped in the same geological places as these fossils of extinct animals and plants?

Why did GOD intelligently design these fossil records?

3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.

 

[orogenicman]

You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.



Wise up:
You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......

In your dreams, princess. Oh look, fossil -

The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.

Putting words in my mouth is not going to help your case. I didn't say that those fossils don't exist. I said they hadn't been found yet. And what I may or may not say (I didn't) in another post is irrelevant to the fact of - oh look, fossil:

No comment on the image, above?

Lies mean that your position is indefensible.

Isn't that true?

What lie, where? Oh the one you just said about me? So you will be lying for Jesus now? I wonder if that is what Jesus would do?

 

[orogenicman]

Where did all those fossils of species of plants and animals that no longer exist come from?

Why are there no remains of modern animals and plants found trapped in the same geological places as these fossils of extinct animals and plants?

Why did GOD intelligently design these fossil records?

3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.

Fossils that miss creation princess here doesn't believe exist:

The Precambrian Fossil Record