Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[ChesBayJJ]

I would hope that you circle of acquaintances is large enough to include an adult that will help you obtain a library card.

Hey, go with the snarky insults. I'm web savvy and can use a search engine. I don't need a library card.

Here, start with these

Meyer s Hopeless Monster - The Panda s Thumb
Meyer s Hopeless Monster Part II - The Panda s Thumb

It blows your Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" BS to pieces

I can get a lot more of you like. You may need to find an educated adult to help you understand them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.

There are thousands upon thousands of examples of such organisms that exist as living species today. We don't even need the fossil record.

Just work your way up through increasing levels of complexity. A very limited set of examples:

Choanoflagellate
Sponge
Cnidarian
Simple worms
Hagfish
Sharks
Bony Fish
Lobe finned fish
Amphibians
Reptiles
Mammals

All exist today. And many predecessor organisms exist in the fossil record. Just consider Tiktaalik - a transitional fossil between fish and amphibian from about 360 mya.

I'll get to your Chengjiang/Burgess shale silliness later.

"We don't even need the fossil record."

Glad to see I've convinced you that Darwin was incorrect.


1. The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.

Understand this: the discovery turns Darwin's 'tree of life' upside down!

a. "Charles Darwin (1809–1882) used the concept of a tree of life in the context of his theory of evolution. In On the Origin of Species(1859) Chapter IV he presented an abstract diagram of a theoretical tree of life for species of an unnamed large genus " Tree of life biology - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
He begins with one simple organism at the bottom, and more and more as they become more complex.

b. The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.
"THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

2. Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world." Extrait de

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Jun-Yuan Chen and Cambrian explosion - Forum

3. BTW.....Darwin recognized that the only proof of his theory would be the fossil record.
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine


It would be best if you obtained an education before you accept wholesale indoctrination.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would hope that you circle of acquaintances is large enough to include an adult that will help you obtain a library card.

Hey, go with the snarky insults. I'm web savvy and can use a search engine. I don't need a library card.

Here, start with these

Meyer s Hopeless Monster - The Panda s Thumb
Meyer s Hopeless Monster Part II - The Panda s Thumb

It blows your Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" BS to pieces

I can get a lot more of you like. You may need to find an educated adult to help you understand them.

No...."let's start here" only the most inept of fools attacks the one making the statement rather than the statement itself.
That is because the statement, the quote, is entirely correct.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

It would be best if you obtained an education before you accept wholesale indoctrination.

It would appear it is you that have been indoctrinated by the Intelligent Designers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I would hope that you circle of acquaintances is large enough to include an adult that will help you obtain a library card.

Hey, go with the snarky insults. I'm web savvy and can use a search engine. I don't need a library card.

Here, start with these

Meyer s Hopeless Monster - The Panda s Thumb
Meyer s Hopeless Monster Part II - The Panda s Thumb

It blows your Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" BS to pieces

I can get a lot more of you like. You may need to find an educated adult to help you understand them.

Gotta love this conclusion from the first paper;

There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom – continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the "€œintelligent design"€ movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They a€™re not even playing the same sport.​

That is a perfect summation of the fallacies in every single PolicalSpice thread.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

That is a perfect summation of the fallacies in every single PolicalSpice thread.

Exactly so

 

[ChesBayJJ]

b. The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.
"THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302



Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.


Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Hey, I can cut and paste too

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker

 

[PoliticalChic]

It would be best if you obtained an education before you accept wholesale indoctrination.

It would appear it is you that have been indoctrinated by the Intelligent Designers.

The second thing that a dolt like you do is claim that there is some aspect of my post that refers to religion, or ID, or creationism.

There isn't.

I have presented linked and sourced data, and facts....and you have no response.
I understand science and you don't.
You accept the Darwin theory on faith alone. Ironic.

You are a moron who can't accept that you've been scammed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey, I can cut and paste too

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker

Still no reference to the specifics that I provided....including Darwin's own words.

Consider yourself schooled.

 

[PoliticalChic]

b. The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.
"THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302



Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.


Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker

"Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see."

An attempt to claim that fossil evidence is unnecessary.
It is.

Clearly you cannot find same.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Hey, I can cut and paste too

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker

Still no reference to the specifics that I provided....including Darwin's own words.

Consider yourself schooled.

Yeah, Darwin's own words. The absurdity of your argument is that much of it is based on Darwin's own statements

3. BTW.....Darwin recognized that the only proof of his theory would be the fossil record.
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

The fact that Darwin didn't get everything right when he wrote Origins in no way makes his theory wrong. The fact that you put so much stock in those comments displays the weakness of your argument.

Darwin has been vindicated over and over. The theory has been revised and updated as new fossils were found, the works of Mendel came to be known, the nature of the DNA molecule came to be known, and the ability to rapidly sequence DNA became a fact.

Darwin had the right idea.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Consider yourself schooled.

Here is some science for you

The reality is that, even on the most conservative interpretation of the fossil record which relegates all of the classic Ediacaran fossils to the stem below the bilaterian common ancestor, or to cnidarians, or to even more remote positions, we still have this sequence observed in the fossil record:

• 
  1. Before 700 mya, maybe well before: Single-celled eukaryotes (acritarchs)
  
  2. Earlier Ediacaran: Multicellular animal eukaryotes, but simple, sponge-grade organisms
  
  3. Later Ediacaran: Multicellular animal eukaryotes with more complexity, i.e. cnidarian-grade organisms
  
  4. Very late Ediacaran: Simple slug-grade/worm-grade organisms (at least their tracks and burrows) – the first ones only making surface tracks and lacking burrowing ability. Making tracks suggests that the organisms have at least a front end and a back end, a mouth, anus, and gut connecting them. These are almost certainly bilaterians.
  
  5. Very late Ediacaran: The very first biomineralized “skeletons”, e.g. Cloudina, basically a worm secreting a tube, as well as the first evidence of predatory boring. Cloudina gets no mention at all in Meyer’s book.
  
  6. At the beginning of the Cambrian, we start to see more complex burrowing – e.g., vertical burrowing through sediment, clearly indicating worm-grade organization and an internal fluid skeleton, i.e. a coelom. The burrows gradually increase in complexity over 10 my.
  
  7. Small shelly fauna: The shells, which started very small and very simple, gradually diversify and get more complex, radiating especially in the Tommotian. By the end of the Tommotion, some of the “small shellies” can be identified as parts of larger, “classic” Cambrian animals. The Tommotian is an utterly key period for any serious discussion of the Cambrian Explosion. Unfortunately, the word “Tommotian”, or any equivalent terminology (the detailed stratigraphy of the Cambrian is still being worked out, see Erwin & Valentine 2013 for a review), does not even appear in the book! The Small Shelly Fauna (SSF) gets just one (one!) mention in the book, buried in endnote 27 of Chapter 4, a whole chapter devoted to debunking the idea that the Ediacaran fauna is “ancestral” to bilaterians. (See discussion of the concept of “ancestral” below, which Meyer makes a complete hash of; however, I would tend to agree that the evidence is not good that the classic Ediacarans are within the bilaterian crown, as much because of the late date of #4-6, above, as anything.)
  
  8. The earliest identifiable representatives of Cambrian “phyla” don’t occur until millions of years after the small shelly fauna have been diversifying, and they tend to be taxa on the stem below the crown of living phyla, rather than placeable within the crown. Trilobites are an exception, but what is often missed is that deposits like the Chenjiang have dozens and dozens of trilobite-like and arthropod-like organisms that fall cladistically outside of these respective clades. These are transitional forms! How can this fact not be highlighted!?!
  
  9. In general, the earliest Cambrian relatives of the living phyla tend to be a lot more wormlike or sluglike than most modern representatives of the living phyla. Of course, many of the living phyla are basically still worms, and the more complex living phyla (e.g. molluscs, chordates) have early-diverging representatives or relatives that are rather more wormlike than the better-known representatives with more complex bodyplans. Even the earliest “fish” – actually either stem-group craniates, stem-group cephalochordates, or stem-group chordates – are basically filter-feeding worms that happen to swim. They don’t have jaws, scales, limbs, a bone skeleton, or anything else that most readers would associate with the word “fish”.

All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian “Explosion” is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms, and that this took something like 30 million years just to get to the most primitive forms that are clearly related to one or another living crown “phyla”, and occurred in many stages, instead of all at once. But, the reader gets very little of the actual big picture from Meyer.

Meyer s Hopeless Monster Part II - The Panda s Thumb

 

[ChesBayJJ]

I'll be back

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey, I can cut and paste too

Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker

Still no reference to the specifics that I provided....including Darwin's own words.

Consider yourself schooled.

Yeah, Darwin's own words. The absurdity of your argument is that much of it is based on Darwin's own statements

3. BTW.....Darwin recognized that the only proof of his theory would be the fossil record.
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

The fact that Darwin didn't get everything right when he wrote Origins in no way makes his theory wrong. The fact that you put so much stock in those comments displays the weakness of your argument.

Darwin has been vindicated over and over. The theory has been revised and updated as new fossils were found, the works of Mendel came to be known, the nature of the DNA molecule came to be known, and the ability to rapidly sequence DNA became a fact.

Darwin had the right idea.

Liar.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Darwin had the right idea.

Liar.

Please, quote the lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin had the right idea.

Liar.

Please, quote the lie.

Everything I've said about both Darwin's theory and about you are both absolutely correct.
And certainly the part about you being a liar.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Darwin had the right idea.

Liar.

Please, quote the lie.

Everything I've said about both Darwin's theory and about you are both absolutely correct.
And certainly the part about you being a liar.

You know nothing about me or my background.

That said, lets get back to first principles.

Your basic premise seems to be that the Chengjiang Fauna disprove Darwin's theory.

I contend that Darwin's general theory, that natural selection drives an evolutionary process that has led to the diversity we have today, is correct, and that you and your sources are wrong.

Now, rather than offering ideas that you think show Darwin to be wrong, why don't you enlighten us with your theories about what has brought us the great diversity of species we see today?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin had the right idea.

Liar.

Please, quote the lie.

Everything I've said about both Darwin's theory and about you are both absolutely correct.
And certainly the part about you being a liar.

You know nothing about me or my background.

That said, lets get back to first principles.

Your basic premise seems to be that the Chengjiang Fauna disprove Darwin's theory.

I contend that Darwin's general theory, that natural selection drives an evolutionary process that has led to the diversity we have today, is correct, and that you and your sources are wrong.

Now, rather than offering ideas that you think show Darwin to be wrong, why don't you enlighten us with your theories about what has brought us the great diversity of species we see today?

Of course I do.

You've revealed yourself to be both ignorant, and a liar.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The second thing that a dolt like you do is claim that there is some aspect of my post that refers to religion, or ID, or creationism.

PoliticalSpice is once again denying her fundamentalist religion is her inspiration for all of her mindless "cut & paste" threads?

Too bad that we already went down that path and outted PoliticalSpice's religious motivation.

You can't unring that bell.