You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[Sherlock Holmes]

Cambrian - I was just reading a thing about "resets" in the evolutionary stream, I'll see if I can find it and post it for y'all.

Catastrophic anoxic events in the ocean, two of them.

Indeed just make up another plausible sounding untestable hypothesis and move on, that's the way of the evolutionist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Indeed just make up another plausible sounding untestable hypothesis and move on, that's the way of the evolutionist.

This is of course the only actual trolling in the thread.

This is where the desperate deniers and up simply begging for attention from the educated world that has dismissed them.

It's all over, but the crying.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is of course the only actual trolling in the thread.

This is where the desperate deniers and up simply begging for attention from the educated world that has dismissed them.

It's all over, but the crying.

"Oh look that would mean we evolved much too fast,...Oh, I know lets invent "punctuated equilibrium" yes that'll do it, everything's OK again now, phew that was close!" - rinse and repeat - that the evolution way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Oh look that would mean we evolved much too fast,...Oh, I know lets invent "punctuated equilibrium" yes that'll do it, everything's OK again now, phew that was close!" - rinse and repeat - that the evolution way.

I know learning from evidence looks foreign to a religious person who clings to iron aged beliefs in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence.

But scientists don't suffer from this embarrassing handicap. Your mockery of a normal, intellectual process only embarrasses you further and demonstrates how anti intellectual you are.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But scientists don't suffer from this embarrassing handicap.

This scientist had this to say about Stephen Meyers book on the Cambrian problem:

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.

Maybe read it and let Dr McMenamin know where all the errors are that he missed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This scientist had this to say about Stephen Meyers book on the Cambrian problem:



View attachment 1005430

So what?

Scientists and people in general have opinions on a great many things.

That's why we invented science.

He can publish his or stfu, like everyone else.

 

[Wuwei]

It's the inconsistencies where the rubber meets the road, not the consistencies, there's no fossil evidence that any of the 40+ diversified phyla that appear in the Cambrian, actually had any ancestors whatsoever, no evidence, none, it's either inexplicably missing or they never existed.

If they never existed then something beyond or ken causes the complex animals to appear.

The term "creationism" encompasses a broad canvas, there are some who abhor intellectualism in all its form and who refuse to acknowledge rudimentary facts of nature (like radioactive decay) and who interpret scripture in a particular way. We should not all be tarred with the same brush.

If you have scientific dispute with me then fine, we can discuss, but I've made no mention of the Bible, radioactive decay or the human race behind created in a single day, challenge me on what I actually say not one what you believe I believe.

The vast majority of the seminal contributors to the scientific revolution were creationists so why make such a fuss about it?

Have you seen Stephen Meyer's book on the Cambrian? it's a truly interesting book, lots of research went into it, here's the comments about it from other scientists:

View attachment 1005404

See the full list here.

Note in particular:



See that's a paleontologist saying that Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian have "failed miserably". He agrees with what I've been telling you, anyone here gonna send him an email and bring him to his senses?

So it's book about science that's respected by scientists, why not read what it has to say? Armchair evolutionists need to start acting like the educated scientifically competent people they keep claiming to be.

What is your conclusion concerning the lack of phyla in the Cambrian period and Meyer saying the Cambrian explanations failed miserably? I presume it would be somewhere between dump Darwinism to Creationism is the answer. Or maybe none of the above.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So what?

Scientists and people in general have opinions on a great many things.

That's why we invented science.

He can publish his or stfu, like everyone else.

Maybe read it and let Dr McMenamin know where all the errors are that he missed, his email is right there on his page.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe read it and let Dr McMenamin know where all the errors are that he missed.

No need. Or maybe you aren't following.

I can just laugh and dismiss it a priori. The consensus of the evidence and the scientific communtiy remains unfazed.

Now if he would publish some peer reviewed science, causing scientists to take notice, we can talk.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What is your conclusion concerning the lack of phyla in the Cambrian period and Meyer saying the Cambrian explanations failed miserably? I presume it would be somewhere between dump Darwinism to Creationism is the answer. Or maybe none of the above.

It wasn't Meyer who said Darwinism failed miserably it was one of the reviewers of Meyer's book, Dr McMenamin. I suggest you read the book, don't ask me to paraphrase or condense it.

 

[Wuwei]

It wasn't Meyer who said Darwinism failed miserably it was one of the reviewers of Meyer's book, Dr McMenamin. I suggest you read the book, don't ask me to paraphrase or condense it.

I'm not asking that. I asked what your conclusion is. What is your belief.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No need. Or maybe you aren't following.

I can just laugh and dismiss it a priori. The consensus of the evidence and the scientific community remains unfazed.

But you have no idea what Meyer's book is about, what it's thesis is, you've not read it.

Now if he would publish some peer reviewed science, causing scientists to take notice, we can talk.

Who? all of those listed in the "blurb" section are published scientists.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not asking that. I asked what your conclusion is. What is your belief.

That evolution cannot plausibly account for what's observed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It wasn't Meyer who said Darwinism failed miserably it was one of the reviewers of Meyer's book, Dr McMenamin. I suggest you read the book, don't ask me to paraphrase or condense it.

And no rational, educated person should care.

Again, this is why we invented science. Religious goons had 100,000 years to support their nonsense.

.and they have had 160+ years to produce science that undermines evolution.

This topic is this a perfect demonstration of how sciebtific rigor separates the serious people and actual knowledge from the charlatans and their carnival barking.

It is also a fine demonstration of the idea that not being able to fully explain an event does not undermine a scientific theory.

The deniers always make this mistake. As if not being able to explajn the Cambrian explosion with one, corre t explanation somehow contradicts evolution theory.

.it's absurd.

 

[Wuwei]

That evolution cannot plausibly account for what's observed.

What sort of thing might you think would replace it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But you have no idea what Meyer's book is about, what it's thesis is, you've not read it.

So what?

(It's of course about intelligent design, but let's let poor Sherlock feel superior for a moment)

I am deferring to the fact that is the theory of evolution, in this discussion.

Does he present mountains of published science to refute it? No?

.then why are you even bringing it up?

Intelligent design doesn't refute evolution. It just sprinkles a layer of useless magical beliefs on top of it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And no rational, educated person should care.

Again, this is why we invented science. Religious goons had 100,000 years to support their nonsense.

.and they have had 160+ years to produce science that undermines evolution.

This topic is this a perfect demonstration of how sciebtific rigor separates the serious people and actual knowledge from the charlatans and their carnival barking.

It is also a fine demonstration of the idea that not being able to fully explain an event does not undermine a scientific theory.

The deniers always make this mistake. As if not being able to explajn the Cambrian explosion with one, corre t explanation somehow contradicts evolution theory.

.it's absurd.

What is the thesis of Meyer's book? what case does he make? why did so many professors and research scientists praise the book?

These are scientific questions, why don't you have answers?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What sort of thing might you think would replace it?

No idea, do you?

 

[Wuwei]

No idea, do you?

No. I have absolutely no idea what theory could be better. But there are a few much worse theories.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

.then why are you even bringing it up?

To show you you are wrong when you insist that the Cambrian is the result of evolution.