This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.� This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Are these scientists all frauds?
Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?
Are they all being dishonest?
Is their view on the matter unscientific?
Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?
Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?
Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?
Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?
Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?
Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?
Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?
Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?
The Cambrian radiation event sometime called the Cambrian explosion which Produced a great diversity of life appeared globally within a geological blink of an eye, and this phyla first appear already within their own categories, classifications, & already in very complex forms without any known ancestors.
The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help resolve the debate, as these transitional fossil forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began. More recently, the sequencing of the genomes of thousands of life forms is revealing just how many and what genes and the proteins they encode have been conserved from the Precambrian. The explosion of external form (the phenotype) in the fossil record is what we see now, but more gradual adaptation was taking place at the molecular level (the genotype). Wang et. al. (1999) for example, recently conducted phylogenetic studies divergences among animal phyla, plants, animals and fungi. These researchers estimated arthropods diverged from more primitive chordates more than 900 million years ago, and Nematodes from that lineage almost 1200 million years ago. They furthermore estimated that the plant, animal and fungi Kingdoms might have split split from a common ancestors almost 1600 million years ago. Finally, they conjecture that the basal animal phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora) diverged between about 1200 and 1500 million years ago. If their research is valid, at least six major metazoan phyla appeared deep in the Precambrian, hundreds of millions of years before the oldest fossils in the fossil record.
The problem with this is that we can only study the genomes of modern creatures. We cannot study the genomes of creatures that existed 500MY.
and lets look at this:
forms without any known ancestors.
That couldn't be anymore wrong.. transitional forms between animal phyla have been found in Cambrian rocks Chengjiang biota:Halkieria and Maikhanella for the mollusks; Eccentrotheca and Camenella
Halkieria as of the many examples you have given are largely disputed even in the literature. These examples you cite all show during the middle or temporal Cambrian period with the exception of one that shows up in the early Cambrian period which means, that none of them could have been a pre Cambrian transitional. Even the relationship between these phyla and other known post Cambrian phyla are greatly debated over. You also seem to have failed to understand my statement. I was speaking of the absents of pre cambrian ancestors, not post Cambrian phyla. Again all your example appear after the Cambrian radiation event.
This is a false claim btw.. BTW, that Cambrian event took place after a mass extinction event, and was mostly aquatic life. Life to which did not magically show no signs of evolution.. You can even look up the lectures of macro-evolution in the ocean's.. But lets site someone else here:
How does this make this a false claim? Listen to what your saying. You are admitting that there was a massive extinction before the radiation even. The problems is that non of these enigmatic extinct creature (if they were indeed living creatures which is also disputed) show any relationship to the multi-cellular life that existed in the Cambrian phyla. Furthermore, if these ediacara biota go extinct millions of years the before the CE, then this does not make a good case for transition. In addition there is great debate as whether these enigmatic ediacara biota were even living creature. Some consider them uekaryotes only because of there size, and others believe they were non living. The fact remains that even your citation is filled with estimates based on conjecture. Your citation also admits that rapid and sudden event is apparent in the fossil record as in ......
The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as (sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record).
This is what Dolf Seilacher has to say on the subject.....
EDIACARA BIOTA
German paleontologist Dolf Seilacher challenged the theory that organisms of the Ediacaran gave rise to later species. Seilacher's view was that the body plans were too simple and strange to have any relation with animals. Even the sponge, the most basic creature, is divided into parts with a mouth like opening, leading to a digestive compartment, and the more complicated species have specialized organs and appendages, however, the Ediacaran fossils, show no such features. "We don't see any indication of organs. We see no legs, no mouths, no anuses, no digestive tracts, nothing to suggest they were animals. We have to stop shoehorning them into categories of modern animals." Seilacher described them as immobile, jelly-filled organisms and classified them as Vendobionts. The fossils show no characteristics indicating the ability to eat or digest food, but may have absorbed sunlight or chemical nutrients direct from the ocean water.
The evidence for multicellular life before the Cambrian event is extreme minute. The first animals we see are sponges including their embryos, and if we can fing soft bodies embryos, we should be able to find other soft bodied ancestors.
Another thing creationists like to play on is the fact that there are problems with getting fossil conditions in the marine environments.. And there are other issues as well:
There are of course many general reasons why finding transitional fossils is a difficult task:
1)The precursor forms may have inhabited a limited range where the transition took place. We have strong evidence that evolution happens most quickly in small populations. Migrations from these source areas to an area conducive to fossilization then make it appear as if a new form arrived suddenly in the fossil record.
2) Other reasons for the scarcity of transitional fossils may be that the precursors may not have encountered the special sorts of circumstances needed to create fossils, especially of soft tissues. This is especially problematic for soft-bodied organisms. many Precambrian life forms were soft-bodied, and soft-bodied organism were likely the precursors to such organisms with hard shells.. Soft-bodied would include even sharks because sharks do not have a skeletal structure and would very rarely leave a fossil record. Most sea life was likely soft-bodied, and most precursors were likely soft-bodied.. ect..
3) Additionally the exposure of rocks from any given age (the Precambrian, for example) is not constant and does not occur at all points on the face of the Earth. Some may have already been exposed and eroded away, while many others may still be buried quite deeply.
It should be noted here that nearly all paleontologists accept that the chance of finding any marine transitional intermediate fossils is low. As Phillip Gingerich (co-discoverer of many of the whale transitional species) said in an informal talk, "finding fossils is easy. It's finding the really interesting ones that's difficult." Also, In this paper one can read a study about a single biological ornaism that shows fast or slow rates of evolutionary change depending on the conditions the population finds itself in. And then we get Stephen Meyer (Discovery Institute co-founder) apparently playing to the Dallas, Texas audience, stated about the Cambrian Radiation that "20-80 million years is not gonna git 'er done". Well the man seemed to have no idea what he was talking about since the shale is a mere 505 mya.. Well, you can feel free to read this:
And there is another problem here that creationists do not consider. It's quite likely that the new Cambrian phyla would have originally evolved in an isolated system or area, and then populated the ocean. If this is to be the case, then it's actually fairly improbable that we'll stumble upon fossil evidence of these ancestors..You would have a better chance of finding a hey colored needle in a hey stack the size of Texas. And that would require them being in a conditions applicable to fossilization. But even if such were discovered, creationists will just play denial, or jump to the next gap and say 'GOD EXISTS HERE"... After all, they can't put him back in the volcano from where he originated from
Again if you can find 600MY soft bodied sponge embryos then you should be able to find soft bodied ancestors.
You say I wrong about transitional forms and name a half a dozen that are highly disputed among experts and are not even precambrian phyla, and then on another paragraph you send me potential excuses why there are no transitionals. You also mentioned Chengjiang in China which is where some of the earliest and best preserved Cambrian phyla have been found, and what is said about the ediacara biota that preceded them is....
Their strange form and apparent disconnectedness from later organisms have led some to consider them a "failed experiment" in multicellular life, with later multicellular life independently re-evolving from unrelated single-celled organisms.
Bing Shen, Lin Dong,Shuhai Xiao, Michał Kowalewski The Avalon Explosion: Evolution of Ediacara Morphospace Science 4 January 2008:
Where are these unrelated single-celled organisms? No one knows.
Another put it like this concerning pre cambrian ediacara biota......
The first fossils that might represent animals appear towards the end of the Precambrian, around 610 million years ago, and are known as the Ediacaran or Vendian biota. These are difficult to relate to later fossils, however. Some may represent precursors of modern phyla, but they may be separate groups, and it is possible they are not really animals at all.
Jy chen a well respected paleontologist of the Nanjing institute of paleontology and geology states
that that Darwin's tree of life is upside down.
Zhou qui gin senior research fellow changing fauna states that there are no transitions and that multicelular life start suddenly appear. American scientist go to China to learn from the Chinese.
"In the cambrian period we get organisms appearing for the first time out of no where with no evolutionary history. Needles to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationist"
Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229)
Dawkins of course believes that this sudden appearance is illusory, but I and many others dont. Example below
"Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995
Gould went so far as propose punctuated equilibrium to try to explain this which was rejected by Dawkins because it raised more questions that than answers.
Ok. Herr Schpinnmeister, explain this guy. Was he in the act of regurgitating?
Could you perhaps give us a cite to the image?
I also would like to hear how petrified forests are formed. I live in a forest. trees don;t stay standing long enough to get buried in sediment, nor will you ever find a stump more than 100 years old.
The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help resolve the debate, as these transitional fossil forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began. More recently, the sequencing of the genomes of thousands of life forms is revealing just how many and what genes and the proteins they encode have been conserved from the Precambrian. The explosion of external form (the phenotype) in the fossil record is what we see now, but more gradual adaptation was taking place at the molecular level (the genotype). Wang et. al. (1999) for example, recently conducted phylogenetic studies divergences among animal phyla, plants, animals and fungi. These researchers estimated arthropods diverged from more primitive chordates more than 900 million years ago, and Nematodes from that lineage almost 1200 million years ago. They furthermore estimated that the plant, animal and fungi Kingdoms might have split split from a common ancestors almost 1600 million years ago. Finally, they conjecture that the basal animal phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora) diverged between about 1200 and 1500 million years ago. If their research is valid, at least six major metazoan phyla appeared deep in the Precambrian, hundreds of millions of years before the oldest fossils in the fossil record.
I also find it interesting that you left this out of the page you got this information from.......
Such estimates of ancient divergence times could contain substantial error caused by uncertainty of the molecular clock assumptions, confounding effects of horizontal gene transfer, and errors in estimating sequence homology (i.e., similarlity). Consequently, attempts to date evolutionary branchings with molecular clocks have resulted in widely different estimates among researchers.
Can we call this quote mining? Yes I think we can. When I quoted Dawkins In spite of of his admission of
appearing for the first time out of no where with no evolutionary history
, I made it clear that he thought the fossil record was illusory.
The Cambrian radiation event sometime called the Cambrian explosion which Produced a great diversity of life appeared globally within a geological blink of an eye, and this phyla first appear already within their own categories, classifications, & already in very complex forms without any known ancestors.
millions of years.. Geological blink of an eye sure, but I don't think you comprehend how long millions of years is....
The problem with this is that we can only study the genomes of modern creatures. We cannot study the genomes of creatures that existed 500MY.
That's not a big issue as things show themselves to be related to each other.. So of course denial of evidence is seen here in your debate once again
Halkieria as of the many examples you have given are largely disputed even in the literature.
Really, do give us a peer reviewed journal on this.. Seems like you are just playing denial games.
These examples you cite all show during the middle or temporal Cambrian period with the exception of one that shows up in the early Cambrian period which means, that none of them could have been a pre Cambrian transitional.
Prove it, because from what I can tell, you are now just making stuff up.
Even the relationship between these phyla and other known post Cambrian phyla are greatly debated over.
Oh yes, by creationists of course..
You also seem to have failed to understand my statement. I was speaking of the absents of pre cambrian ancestors, not post Cambrian phyla.
Please define pre-cambrian anscestors... I don't even think you know what you are looking for.
Again all your example appear after the Cambrian radiation event.
Incorrec
How does this make this a false claim? Listen to what your saying. You are admitting that there was a massive extinction before the radiation even.
That's not a problem for evolution.. And were talking extinction events some 20 million years before.. The Cambrian explosions wasn't much of an explosion as you are trying to proclaim it to be.
The problems is that non of these enigmatic extinct creature (if they were indeed living creatures which is also disputed) show any relationship to the multi-cellular life that existed in the Cambrian phyla.
Please provide a peer review journal.
Furthermore, if these ediacara biota go extinct millions of years the before the CE, then this does not make a good case for transition. In addition there is great debate as whether these enigmatic ediacara biota were even living creature.
Wrong it does, and I see the game now, all transitional forms are now disputed as being living creatures.. Fun stuff!
Some consider them uekaryotes only because of there size, and others believe they were non living.
Peer review journal please where it discusses size as a determination for classifying something as "living"..
The fact remains that even your citation is filled with estimates based on conjecture.
Actually, all you posted was conjecture.. Basically every argument you make is "oh that's disputable".. It's like looking at your family album and proclaiming that you were never born, and the child in the photos isn't you because you have small gaps in the album.. That's pretty much your basic argument here.
Your citation also admits that rapid and sudden event is apparent in the fossil record as in ......
Umm yeah, rapid isn't 3 days.. Do you know how how many days are in just 1 million years vs 40 million + ? I don't think you grasp time scales. Only in geological terms is that a drop in the bucket, but not on evolutionary time scales.
This is what Dolf Seilacher has to say on the subject.....
EDIACARA BIOTA
German paleontologist Dolf Seilacher challenged the theory that organisms of the Ediacaran gave rise to later species. Seilacher's view was that the body plans were too simple and strange to have any relation with animals.
Now that is just stupid...
Even the sponge, the most basic creature, is divided into parts with a mouth like opening, leading to a digestive compartment, and the more complicated species have specialized organs and appendages, however, the Ediacaran fossils, show no such features.
Then he would have issues with protists to which show animal characteristics and plant like characteristics. Sorry if we excuse his ignorance on the subject. Animals are not classified specifically in regards to needing legs, arms, feet, a mouth ect..
Seilacher described them as immobile, jelly-filled organisms and classified them as Vendobionts.
Where did he get evidence for jelly filling? lol... BTw, organs of softbody animals are highly unlikely to fossilize. Such a bad argument by you that it's not even funny.
The evidence for multicellular life before the Cambrian event is extreme minute.
Sharks... And this is hilarious btw..
The first animals we see are sponges including their embryos, and if we can fing soft bodies embryos, we should be able to find other soft bodied ancestors.
Again we have comprehension fail.. Your chances of finding soft body fossils is pretty much nil..And if any are given it would be under extremely rare conditions... Your basing your argument on pure 100 percent assumption, and dishonesty knowing this fact..
Again if you can find 600MY soft bodied sponge embryos then you should be able to find soft bodied ancestors.
Incorrect.. It would not mean we can.. Please learn how fossilization works.. And understand that is highly unlikely.
You say I wrong about transitional forms and name a half a dozen that are highly disputed among experts and are not even precambrian phyla,
As far as I can tell, it's only disputed by creationists.
and then on another paragraph you send me potential excuses why there are no transitionals.
Denial of the transistionals is a key component in creationist logic of course. Also according to your logic, Dogs aren't related to each other either because you have no transitional forms between a poodle and the dogs they were bread from.
You also mentioned Chengjiang in China which is where some of the earliest and best preserved Cambrian phyla have been found, and what is said about the ediacara biota that preceded them is....
Their strange form and apparent disconnectedness from later organisms have led some to consider them a "failed experiment" in multicellular life, with later multicellular life independently re-evolving from unrelated single-celled organisms.
Nothing wrong with that.. We also have one eyed shark.. Hammer heads to which likely were a mutation event..
Where are these unrelated single-celled organisms? No one knows.
Doubt it..
Another put it like this concerning pre cambrian ediacara biota......
The first fossils that might represent animals appear towards the end of the Precambrian, around 610 million years ago, and are known as the Ediacaran or Vendian biota. These are difficult to relate to later fossils, however. Some may represent precursors of modern phyla, but they may be separate groups, and it is possible they are not really animals at all.
No they were likely animals... Plus what makes you think non-animal life can't evolve into animal like? Protists for example can be both plant like an animal like.. You have plants that have mouths and eat rats..Are they animals? What about the green sea slug? .. Funny, because your argument considers absolute denial based on 100 percent pure assumption that GOD DONE IT.
Zhou qui gin senior research fellow changing fauna states that there are no transitions and that multicelular life start suddenly appear. American scientist go to China to learn from the Chinese.
Yeah, creationists that just make things up in order to conform it to the bible...
In the cambrian period we get organisms appearing for the first time out of no where with no evolutionary history. Needles to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationist"
Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229)
Dawkins of course believes that this sudden appearance is illusory, but I and many others dont. Example below
It is illusionary. You are ignoring millions of years, or trying include pre-cambrian fossils into cambrian fossils ect. There is a lot of dishonesty in your creationist sources.
"Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995
That's great.. This is where one of Darwin's theories was proven not exactly correct in modern biology. You can have sudden mutation and a new species..Or even cases where animals and plants can evolve faster than just gradual. None of what you speak of is against modern TOE.
Clownboat wrote:No offense was taken. I asked if you could show that you speak the truth in regards to the claim that your god created him. I was a Christian for 20 years, so I already know that you cannot show that you speak truth in this regard, but I did hope that it might prevent you from making such statements on a debate forum.
Prove that God created Aquinas? How about this. You prove to me that Aquinas actually existed, and then from there I can easily prove that God created him.
There really is no need. Just please be mindful about making claims that you cannot provide evidence for when on a debate site (or at least don't get offended when it is pointed out that it is just a claim).
Woo hoo! Can you talk to me about all the different animals in the fossil record that are no longer around and explain how they came about. I would really like to hear your opinion on neanderthals ect... too.
If that is really what you want to talk about, then why are you challenging the existence of God? Why are you posting this:
You said that all scientific evidence points you to a god. I showed you some evidence and asked how that pointed you to god. This seems very reasonable to me.
If you are being truthful, please examine this and show how it convinces you that there is a god.
Maybe because the end game of all your conversations is to proselytize for your atheism?
You need to worry less about end games and other conspiracies that might be going on in your head and just stick the the discussion. I am genuinely interested in your comments and it is impossible to garnish anything from this conversation when you keep accusing me of end games and proselytizing. From a readers perspective, this looks like you are dodging.
Anyways, we shall see. Let's talk about fossils.
How was a fish fossilized in the act of giving birth?
This has been answered.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
Yes I have heard this mantra before.
No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes. Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian. You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo. We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints. The Neo Darwinist simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had arboreal features and looked nothing like ours. We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old. There is always away to to write if off. In the case of the dinosaur, the excuse is, we must have misunderstood the laws of physics. Understandably they dont have the backing of many physicist regarding that hypothesis.
Last edited by THEMAYAN on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
...
No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes.
Please present an example for analysis.
THEMAYAN wrote:
Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian.
Please present documentation for analysis.
THEMAYAN wrote:
You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.
You are aware that all those folks died before the formulation of the ToE, ain'tcha?
THEMAYAN wrote:
We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints.
Please present documentation for analysis.
THEMAYAN wrote:
The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had aboral features and looked nothing like ours.
Hopefully you'll present documentation as requested, and we can put these folks on the good path.
THEMAYAN wrote:
We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old.
Please present documentation for analysis.
THEMAYAN wrote:
There is always away to to write if off. In the case of the dinosaur, the excuse is, we must have misunderstood the laws of physics. Understandably they dont have the backing of many physicist regarding that hypothesis.
Please present documentation for analysis.
Let's call this the 1st Challenge.
All I see is a bunch of assertions with absolutely no supporting data.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
Yes I have heard this mantra before.
No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes. Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian. You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo. We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints. The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had aboral features and looked nothing like ours. We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old. There is always away to to write if off. In the case of the dinosaur, the excuse is, we must have misunderstood the laws of physics. Understandably they dont have the backing of many physicist regarding that hypothesis.
Is this what you're talking about because it doesn't seem like the 'neo-darwinist' refutation has anything to do with 'australopithecine' and there certainly was no fossilized sandal.
