The 'Bestiary': The Burgess Shale

[PoliticalChic]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

This should be in the religion section.

To further skewer the evolutionary biologists, one need simply note exactly how definitive are the first appearances of many marine invertebrate animals!

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Any with an open mind, a scientific outlook, would have to agree that such brand-new developments flies in the face of any Darwinian-type view: no gradualism, no series of changes.....

...just new organisms.


How could this be?

 

[Alfalfa]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

This should be in the religion section.

To further skewer the evolutionary biologists, one need simply note exactly how definitive are the first appearances of many marine invertebrate animals!

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Any with an open mind, a scientific outlook, would have to agree that such brand-new developments flies in the face of any Darwinian-type view: no gradualism, no series of changes.....

...just new organisms.


How could this be?

Darwin was on the leading edge of evolution science and has been dead for 150 years.

Using Darwin as a benchmark for evolutionary science is like using Galileo as the go to man for the final word in astrophysics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This should be in the religion section.

To further skewer the evolutionary biologists, one need simply note exactly how definitive are the first appearances of many marine invertebrate animals!

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Any with an open mind, a scientific outlook, would have to agree that such brand-new developments flies in the face of any Darwinian-type view: no gradualism, no series of changes.....

...just new organisms.


How could this be?

Darwin was on the leading edge of evolution science and has been dead for 150 years.

Using Darwin as a benchmark for evolutionary science is like using Galileo as the go to man for the final word in astrophysics.

So...rather than your previous fabrication, that you'd answered my 'questions,' your default now is that some sort of new understanding has been found in advancing evolutionary theory in the recent 150 years.

Really?

Other than Darwin's precis of gradual changes accumulating to produce new species.....

....what is the new thinking that you allude to?


And what is the evidence for same?



Actually, your suggestion is either incorrect, or made up on the spot.
If you had actually studied the subject, you might have known that modern, contemporary theory, is still based on Darwin.
Masatoshi Nei emphasizes the driving force of evolution is mutation including any types of DNA changes (nucleotide changes, chromosomal changes, and genome duplication) and natural selection is merely a force eliminating less fit genotypes (theory of mutation-driven evolution).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masatoshi_Nei

Therefore, any supporter of the supposed science of evolution must, ultimately, answer the question posed by the OP: how to account for the brand new organisms and types of organization that I highlighted.


But...also realize, the view presented by Nei has this limitation:
"...clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. .... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor


The question I've posed is fundamental.

It is bogus to suggest that my view of religion has anything to do with the premise.

The real question is why you accept the theory sans evidence.

 

[Hollie]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

This should be in the religion section.

To further skewer the evolutionary biologists, one need simply note exactly how definitive are the first appearances of many marine invertebrate animals!

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Any with an open mind, a scientific outlook, would have to agree that such brand-new developments flies in the face of any Darwinian-type view: no gradualism, no series of changes.....

...just new organisms.


How could this be?

Religious zealots typically cut and paste from hacks such as Meyer. As a shill for the Disco'tute, his agenda is to appeal to Ignorance on the part of those who need to vilify science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This should be in the religion section.

To further skewer the evolutionary biologists, one need simply note exactly how definitive are the first appearances of many marine invertebrate animals!

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Any with an open mind, a scientific outlook, would have to agree that such brand-new developments flies in the face of any Darwinian-type view: no gradualism, no series of changes.....

...just new organisms.


How could this be?

Religious zealots typically cut and paste from hacks such as Meyer. As a shill for the Disco'tute, his agenda is to appeal to Ignorance on the part of those who need to vilify science.

Still not equipped to answer the questions.....

....so, your usual 'is not, is not' post.


OK....you can go now.

 

[Hollie]

To further skewer the evolutionary biologists, one need simply note exactly how definitive are the first appearances of many marine invertebrate animals!

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Any with an open mind, a scientific outlook, would have to agree that such brand-new developments flies in the face of any Darwinian-type view: no gradualism, no series of changes.....

...just new organisms.


How could this be?

Darwin was on the leading edge of evolution science and has been dead for 150 years.

Using Darwin as a benchmark for evolutionary science is like using Galileo as the go to man for the final word in astrophysics.

So...rather than your previous fabrication, that you'd answered my 'questions,' your default now is that some sort of new understanding has been found in advancing evolutionary theory in the recent 150 years.

Really?

Other than Darwin's precis of gradual changes accumulating to produce new species.....

....what is the new thinking that you allude to?


And what is the evidence for same?



Actually, your suggestion is either incorrect, or made up on the spot.
If you had actually studied the subject, you might have known that modern, contemporary theory, is still based on Darwin.
Masatoshi Nei emphasizes the driving force of evolution is mutation including any types of DNA changes (nucleotide changes, chromosomal changes, and genome duplication) and natural selection is merely a force eliminating less fit genotypes (theory of mutation-driven evolution).
See Masatoshi Nei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, any supporter of the supposed science of evolution must, ultimately, answer the question posed by the OP: how to account for the brand new organisms and types of organization that I highlighted.


But...also realize, the view presented by Nei has this limitation:
"...clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. .... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor


The question I've posed is fundamental.

It is bogus to suggest that my view of religion has anything to do with the premise.

The real question is why you accept the theory sans evidence.

You do realize that Agassiz died in 1873, right?

The real question is why would anyone who cuts and pastes from Harun Yahya expect to be taken seriously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin was on the leading edge of evolution science and has been dead for 150 years.

Using Darwin as a benchmark for evolutionary science is like using Galileo as the go to man for the final word in astrophysics.

So...rather than your previous fabrication, that you'd answered my 'questions,' your default now is that some sort of new understanding has been found in advancing evolutionary theory in the recent 150 years.

Really?

Other than Darwin's precis of gradual changes accumulating to produce new species.....

....what is the new thinking that you allude to?


And what is the evidence for same?



Actually, your suggestion is either incorrect, or made up on the spot.
If you had actually studied the subject, you might have known that modern, contemporary theory, is still based on Darwin.
Masatoshi Nei emphasizes the driving force of evolution is mutation including any types of DNA changes (nucleotide changes, chromosomal changes, and genome duplication) and natural selection is merely a force eliminating less fit genotypes (theory of mutation-driven evolution).
See Masatoshi Nei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, any supporter of the supposed science of evolution must, ultimately, answer the question posed by the OP: how to account for the brand new organisms and types of organization that I highlighted.


But...also realize, the view presented by Nei has this limitation:
"...clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. .... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor


The question I've posed is fundamental.

It is bogus to suggest that my view of religion has anything to do with the premise.

The real question is why you accept the theory sans evidence.

You do realize that Agassiz died in 1873, right?

The real question is why would anyone who cuts and pastes from Harun Yahya expect to be taken seriously.

You know how I hate to have to reveal what a dolt you are....but, since you persist, here goes.

You cast aspersions on this quote:

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


Of course, when you are unable to back up your claim, you will be proving the premise of the OP.



Feeling trapped?

 

[Alfalfa]

This thread is too dumb to waste my time on...buh bye.

 

[Hollie]

So...rather than your previous fabrication, that you'd answered my 'questions,' your default now is that some sort of new understanding has been found in advancing evolutionary theory in the recent 150 years.

Really?

Other than Darwin's precis of gradual changes accumulating to produce new species.....

....what is the new thinking that you allude to?


And what is the evidence for same?



Actually, your suggestion is either incorrect, or made up on the spot.
If you had actually studied the subject, you might have known that modern, contemporary theory, is still based on Darwin.
Masatoshi Nei emphasizes the driving force of evolution is mutation including any types of DNA changes (nucleotide changes, chromosomal changes, and genome duplication) and natural selection is merely a force eliminating less fit genotypes (theory of mutation-driven evolution).
See Masatoshi Nei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, any supporter of the supposed science of evolution must, ultimately, answer the question posed by the OP: how to account for the brand new organisms and types of organization that I highlighted.


But...also realize, the view presented by Nei has this limitation:
"...clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. .... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor


The question I've posed is fundamental.

It is bogus to suggest that my view of religion has anything to do with the premise.

The real question is why you accept the theory sans evidence.

You do realize that Agassiz died in 1873, right?

The real question is why would anyone who cuts and pastes from Harun Yahya expect to be taken seriously.

You know how I hate to have to reveal what a dolt you are....but, since you persist, here goes.

You cast aspersions on this quote:

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


Of course, when you are unable to back up your claim, you will be proving the premise of the OP.



Feeling trapped?

Did you know that Meyer is not a scientist and has no formal training in the biological sciences?

I hate to make you feel like such a dolt, but you're accustomed to that, right?

Feeling like a dunce..... again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You do realize that Agassiz died in 1873, right?

The real question is why would anyone who cuts and pastes from Harun Yahya expect to be taken seriously.

You know how I hate to have to reveal what a dolt you are....but, since you persist, here goes.

You cast aspersions on this quote:

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


Of course, when you are unable to back up your claim, you will be proving the premise of the OP.



Feeling trapped?

Did you know that Meyer is not a scientist and has no formal training in the biological sciences?

I hate to make you feel like such a dolt, but you're accustomed to that, right?

Feeling like a dunce..... again?

The post was designed to trap you....as it did.

Again?

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


No response to the question will indicate that the quote is correct in all aspects.


Take your time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is too dumb to waste my time on...buh bye.

And that is the only possible disguise your retreat can veil itself in.

Wise choice.

 

[Alfalfa]

This thread is too dumb to waste my time on...buh bye.

And that is the only possible disguise your retreat can veil itself in.

Wise choice.

No, I'm just bored by you...already.

 

[Hollie]

You know how I hate to have to reveal what a dolt you are....but, since you persist, here goes.

You cast aspersions on this quote:

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


Of course, when you are unable to back up your claim, you will be proving the premise of the OP.



Feeling trapped?

Did you know that Meyer is not a scientist and has no formal training in the biological sciences?

I hate to make you feel like such a dolt, but you're accustomed to that, right?

Feeling like a dunce..... again?

The post was designed to trap you....as it did.

Again?

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


No response to the question will indicate that the quote is correct in all aspects.


Take your time.

I thought you would try to slither away. You didn't know Meyer had no training in the biological sciences?

No response indicates you didn't know that and simply cut and paste what you steal from Harun Yahya.

You can actually find authoritative data on evolutionary / biological sciences if you venture out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Waiting.

Let us know if you need help.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you know that Meyer is not a scientist and has no formal training in the biological sciences?

I hate to make you feel like such a dolt, but you're accustomed to that, right?

Feeling like a dunce..... again?

The post was designed to trap you....as it did.

Again?

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


No response to the question will indicate that the quote is correct in all aspects.


Take your time.

I thought you would try to slither away. You didn't know Meyer had no training in the biological sciences?

No response indicates you didn't know that and simply cut and paste what you steal from Harun Yahya.

You can actually find authoritative data on evolutionary / biological sciences if you venture out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Waiting.

Let us know if you need help.

Since you've verified that Meyers spoke the truth, there really is no basis for your quibbles about anything else about him.
Unlike you, he knows whereof he speaks.


This is why I feel guilty engaging you in these threads....

...it's the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel.


You reveal that you know nothing, and your motivation is simply an anti-religion bias.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

 

[Steven_R]

"... in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection..."

All kinds of things Charles Darwin did not understand in 1859 were figured out in the subsequent 150 years. Geology, genetics, chemistry were all in their infancy when Darwin did his work Those generations of biologists since then answered those questions Darwin had. It's no different than Newton not being able to how to understand the perihelion of Mercury in relation to the work he did with calculus. It took two centuries before Einstein could answer that question. It took another three-quarters of a century before Peter Higgs picked up where Einstein left off.

Science is constant discovery and refinement. The answers rarely, if ever, fall into place as a complete picture in one fell swoop.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is too dumb to waste my time on...buh bye.

And that is the only possible disguise your retreat can veil itself in.

Wise choice.

No, I'm just bored by you...already.

No...you've simply run out of excuses.

Be gone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"... in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection..."

All kinds of things Charles Darwin did not understand in 1859 were figured out in the subsequent 150 years. Geology, genetics, chemistry were all in their infancy when Darwin did his work Those generations of biologists since then answered those questions Darwin had. It's no different than Newton not being able to how to understand the perihelion of Mercury in relation to the work he did with calculus. It took two centuries before Einstein could answer that question. It took another three-quarters of a century before Peter Higgs picked up where Einstein left off.

Science is constant discovery and refinement. The answers rarely, if ever, fall into place as a complete picture in one fell swoop.

"All kinds of things Charles Darwin did not understand in 1859 were figured out in the subsequent 150 years."


Could you provide a few of the explanations for Darwin's lacunae that are clear today?

Can you answer the query of the OP:
How, then, does this fit with Darwin's theory of gradual change which would be indicated by innumerable false starts and biological dead ends, indicating failures of random alterations?

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian?
Note how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics. And why it is ignored.
Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.
In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.



In truth, you cannot answer the question, nor can contemporary evolutionary theory.


Another question?
Why do you make stuff up when it is so very easy to show you are no more than a source of hot air?

 

[Hollie]

The post was designed to trap you....as it did.

Again?

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


No response to the question will indicate that the quote is correct in all aspects.


Take your time.

I thought you would try to slither away. You didn't know Meyer had no training in the biological sciences?

No response indicates you didn't know that and simply cut and paste what you steal from Harun Yahya.

You can actually find authoritative data on evolutionary / biological sciences if you venture out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Waiting.

Let us know if you need help.

Since you've verified that Meyers spoke the truth, there really is no basis for your quibbles about anything else about him.
Unlike you, he knows whereof he speaks.


This is why I feel guilty engaging you in these threads....

...it's the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel.


You reveal that you know nothing, and your motivation is simply an anti-religion bias.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

Your blankets of denial won't erase your ignorance regarding Meyer as a fraud.

If you wish to learn about the evolutionary / biological sciences, I can lend an assist.

Howver, you must be willing to address the failings of the religious charlatans such as Harun Yahya who will keep you under the yolk of fear and ignorance.

....or is it that you prefer fear and ignorance over enlightenment and knowledge.

 

[Alfalfa]

The post was designed to trap you....as it did.

Again?

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


Since it is not the name 'Meyers' that you object to, you must mean that the quote is not 100% accurate.


So....prove it.

Go ahead.

What part, or aspect, or element is untrue?


Waiting.


No response to the question will indicate that the quote is correct in all aspects.


Take your time.

I thought you would try to slither away. You didn't know Meyer had no training in the biological sciences?

No response indicates you didn't know that and simply cut and paste what you steal from Harun Yahya.

You can actually find authoritative data on evolutionary / biological sciences if you venture out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Waiting.

Let us know if you need help.

Since you've verified that Meyers spoke the truth, there really is no basis for your quibbles about anything else about him.
Unlike you, he knows whereof he speaks.


This is why I feel guilty engaging you in these threads....

...it's the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel.


You reveal that you know nothing, and your motivation is simply an anti-religion bias.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

The purpose of the thread finally surfaces...although most of us knew all the time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought you would try to slither away. You didn't know Meyer had no training in the biological sciences?

No response indicates you didn't know that and simply cut and paste what you steal from Harun Yahya.

You can actually find authoritative data on evolutionary / biological sciences if you venture out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Waiting.

Let us know if you need help.

Since you've verified that Meyers spoke the truth, there really is no basis for your quibbles about anything else about him.
Unlike you, he knows whereof he speaks.


This is why I feel guilty engaging you in these threads....

...it's the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel.


You reveal that you know nothing, and your motivation is simply an anti-religion bias.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

The purpose of the thread finally surfaces...although most of us knew all the time.

Back again.....with no more insight than you began?

Why?

Embarrassed?


Hit the road.