lt
Talkorigins is an evolutionist website - not sure why you do not understand this.
But you are correct about some creationist websites. Years ago when I was studying articles by the Creation Research Society (CRS) I tried to join, until I realized you have to believe in the trinity doctrine to join - Newton rejected the trinity doctrine, and so do we. Many creationists interpret the creative days in Genesis as being 24 hours in length - we reject this as well. These are inaccurate religious interpretations of the Bible and lead to conclusions that are disproven by science. Some evolutionist doctrines are due to inaccurate interpretations of scientific evidence.
I’m not sure what an “evolutionist” website is. The term “evolutionist” is, more often than not, a term used by the fundamentalist Christian / “intelligent design” folks. TalkOrigins is a science related website that presents a science-based analysis with clear footnotes and references to what they present.Susan Mazur is a reporter.Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian ExplosionThen you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.
Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
With what observational proof Hollie?
We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:
Excerpt:Evolution — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.wol.jw.org
"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."
From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:
Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.wol.jw.org
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33
Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.
I note your “quote” here:Natural History, October 1959, p. 467., is a publication of the Watchtower Bible Society and not a peer reviewed document, rather a document with a predefined agenda.
"Natural History" is not a publication of Jehovah's Witnesses and I gave you a number of other references. Yes, we quoted those sources - however you have not responded on those quotes.
For example:
Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.
On peer review - did you realize many scientific discoveries were found by those who thought 'outside the box?' Not to mention you have not given evidence the sources quoted are not peer reviewed.
And Archaelogy.org?
The link is now in archive:
The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual - Archaeology Magazine Archive
Interview with New York Medical College cell biologist Stuart Newmanarchive.archaeology.org
Did you actually read the link? It involves many branches of scientific research - note also this excerpt:
"The impetus for the Extended Synthesis, a graft onto, or a major departure from, the Modern Synthesis (depending on who is describing it), was the overwhelming data generated in recent years that just didn't fit the old formula. Phenomena like self-organization, epigenetics and plasticity intruded in ways that were complementary to, and sometimes contradictory to, natural selection. Then there was niche construction to consider--where organisms invent their habitats (burrows, bird nests, bee hives, etc.) rather than being selected by their fitness to pre-existing ones. And also punctuated evolution, abrupt transitions in the fossil record, and the even more puzzling episodes of stasis."
Epigenetic variation is just one example of micro-evolution not macro-evolution. For example, methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin (formerly thought to be the inert backbone of the chromosome. It is c. 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA.
From our literature on epigenetic research:
How Long Can You Live? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.wol.jw.org
Excerpt:
"What is epigenetics?
Living cells contain genetic information, which is needed for the production of new cells. Much of this information is found in the genome, a term that refers to all the DNA in a cell. In recent times, however, scientists have delved deeper into another array of mechanisms within the cell—the epigenome, a word that can mean “above the genome.” Epigenetics is the study of this amazing group of mechanisms and their chemical reactions.
The molecules that make up the epigenome look nothing like DNA. Whereas DNA resembles a twisted ladder, or double helix, the epigenome is essentially a system of chemical marks, or tags, that attach to DNA. What is the role of the epigenome? Like a conductor directing an orchestra, the epigenome directs the way genetic information in the DNA is expressed. The molecular tags turn sets of genes on or off in response to both the needs of the cell and environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and toxins. Recent discoveries involving the epigenome have caused a revolution in the biological sciences...."
But what observed mechanism can you point to as evidence of macro-evolution?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or...www.talkorigins.org
talkorigins is an evolutionist website which is generally on the opposite side from creationist websites in evolution vs. creation debate. I cannot respond to such a long link. However, do you also consult creationist websites? I have found that in most debates there is some truth on both sides but that both sides incorrectly state the other side has presented no evidence. It is not easy to find the actual truth between those two sides - it involves in depth research and a subjective examination of the actual observations of (some) scientists.
I am glad you responded on a specific example in the fossil record - I will therefore switch to your more recent post until you specify some point in the talkorigins website.
I generally find it rather easy to find the truth. Creation based websites invariably have the same “statement of faith” that precludes them as honest participants in the exploration of life sciences and the natural world. Their agenda is that all knowledge must conform to a biblical rendition of history. Very clearly, much of our biological world and the universe we understand is in clear and sharp contrast to biblical tales and fables.
The development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables. ID / creationism has no plausible means to investigate its claims of supernatural creation. ID / Creationism doesn't even present a tentative hypothesis or a beginning of a framework to explain how magic and supernaturalism answers anything. So what useful role can "it happened by supernatural means" have in advancement of knowledge?
Talkorigins is an evolutionist website - not sure why you do not understand this.
But you are correct about some creationist websites. Years ago when I was studying articles by the Creation Research Society (CRS) I tried to join, until I realized you have to believe in the trinity doctrine to join - Newton rejected the trinity doctrine, and so do we. Many creationists interpret the creative days in Genesis as being 24 hours in length - we reject this as well. These are inaccurate religious interpretations of the Bible and lead to conclusions that are disproven by science. Some evolutionist doctrines are due to inaccurate interpretations of scientific evidence.