1. I noticed that a recent thread tried to base support for Darwin's theory on the work of neo-Marxist Stephen J. Gould......
Gould used, as a basis for his attempted defense of Darwinism, Karl Marx's theory of history, and called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'
Gould danced around the fact that he could find no evidence to support either.
Rather than attempt to classify the new and different organism found in the Burgess Shale, Stephen Gould actually characterized the creatures as being so exotic as to defy affinity in classification with any modern groups. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7258/full/460952a.html
2. The Burgess Shale attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts.
Whatever their classification, it is their origin that requires explanation.
How, exactly, does the biological information necessary to produce new characteristics originate?
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
3. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.
So...what conclusion should a scientists draw....if the individual being relied on for said conclusion is....objective?
4. Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The arthropod exoskeleton is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow molting and exoskeleton growth....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'-
A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.
So....for Darwin to be correct, there should be signs of each, of all, of these distinct structures evolving prior to the fully-formed organism being found in the fossil record.
Should be such evidence....or, an explanation posed as to why there is none.
5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe. Consider this complication: such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.
This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.
6. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 letters,humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See The programs of life, for an explanation of the DNA letters.)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
7. The amount of information that could be stored in a pinheads volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content Gitt, W., Dazzling design in miniature, Creation 20(1):6, 1997
Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information.
a. Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. " (Gitt, p. 124). [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]
To short-circuit the expected criticism.....let's remind all that there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution.
This critique is based purely on the science behind Darwin's theory....or the absence of same.
Of course, if any would rather attack me rather than confront the OP....I do love attention.
Gould used, as a basis for his attempted defense of Darwinism, Karl Marx's theory of history, and called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'
Gould danced around the fact that he could find no evidence to support either.
Rather than attempt to classify the new and different organism found in the Burgess Shale, Stephen Gould actually characterized the creatures as being so exotic as to defy affinity in classification with any modern groups. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7258/full/460952a.html
2. The Burgess Shale attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts.
Whatever their classification, it is their origin that requires explanation.
How, exactly, does the biological information necessary to produce new characteristics originate?
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
3. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.
So...what conclusion should a scientists draw....if the individual being relied on for said conclusion is....objective?
4. Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The arthropod exoskeleton is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow molting and exoskeleton growth....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'-
A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.
So....for Darwin to be correct, there should be signs of each, of all, of these distinct structures evolving prior to the fully-formed organism being found in the fossil record.
Should be such evidence....or, an explanation posed as to why there is none.
5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe. Consider this complication: such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.
This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.
6. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 letters,humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See The programs of life, for an explanation of the DNA letters.)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
7. The amount of information that could be stored in a pinheads volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content Gitt, W., Dazzling design in miniature, Creation 20(1):6, 1997
Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information.
a. Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. " (Gitt, p. 124). [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]
To short-circuit the expected criticism.....let's remind all that there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution.
This critique is based purely on the science behind Darwin's theory....or the absence of same.
Of course, if any would rather attack me rather than confront the OP....I do love attention.
