How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

[Purple Knight]

This is not a question of whether or not evolution is crazy, but how crazy it seems at first glance.

That is, when we discard our experiences and look at claims as if through new eyes, what do we find when we look at evolution? I Believe we can find a great deal of common ground with this question, because when I discard my experience as an animal breeder, when I discard my knowledge, and what I've been taught, I might look at evolution with the same skepticism as someone who has either never been taught anything about it, or someone who has been taught to distrust it.

Personally my mind goes to the keratinised spines on the tongues of cats. Yes, cats have fingernails growing out of their tongues! Gross, right? Well, these particular fingernails have evolved into perfect little brushes for the animal's fur. But I think of that first animal with a horrid growth of keratin on its poor tongue. The poor thing didn't die immediately, and this fits perfectly with what I said about two steps back paying for one forward. This detrimental mutation didn't hurt the animal enough for the hapless thing to die of it, but surely it caused some suffering. And persevering thing that he was, he reproduced despite his disability (probably in a time of plenty that allowed that). But did he have the growths anywhere else? It isn't beyond reason to think of them protruding from the corners of his eyes or caking up more and more on the palms of his hands. Perhaps he had them where his eyelashes were, and it hurt him to even blink. As disturbing as my mental picture is of this scenario, this sad creature isn't even as bad off as this boar, whose tusks grew up and curled until they punctured his brain.





This is a perfect example of a detrimental trait being preserved because it doesn't hurt the animal enough to kill it before it mates. So we don't have to jump right from benefit to benefit. The road to a new beneficial trait might be long, going backwards most of the way, and filled with a lot of stabbed brains and eyelids.

Walking backwards most of the time, uphill both ways, and across caltrops almost the entire trip?

I have to admit, thinking about walking along such a path sounds like, at very least, a very depressing way to get from A to B. I would hope there would be a better way.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Seeing if we can get our discussion back to one post....

Lets abandon the flat-earth "analogy" shall we, it isn't helpful here.

Why? IMO it’s a pretty apt comparison. Both are denials of long-standing and widely-accepted scientific conclusions, primarily for religious reasons.

Why do you need to talk about that analogy? I also don't reagrd the earth as being flat (although locally it is, this is an important point in relativity by the way) so a better anlogy is something we disagree on.

I also object to you saying "for religious reasons". First even if that were true it's irrelevant, its called the genetic fallacy, that the reason for some view somehoew show the view to be untrue or suspect, its a fallacious argument.

I understand your reaction to what I'm saying but I think there's more to this than you might think.

You are paraphrasing too "agree that any data or other information they come across that even appears to contradict the Bible will automatically be deemed 'invalid'". But that isn't what's written there, you already did quote it earlier, so here it is again with an additional sentence included:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information

That amounts to them saying that there is no observation that contradicts (what they refer to as) "the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation". They're also saying that if someone claims that there is, then that someone is in error, there's a misunderstanding, the issue is only an apparent issue not a real one.

They are focusing on claims that evidence is counter to scripture and regard these as only apparent not real, it's not data that they'd deem invalid but the interpretation of it, the inferences from it.

I don't regard that as anti-science at all, for centuries science progressed in leaps and bounds by people who like held the same or similar views of scripture. A good example would be Galileo who did not for one second think that the Bible was wrong, he argued that the Church had misconstrued, his position was very similar, if science appears to contradict scripture then it is us who are in error not scripture, are you going to label Galileo as anti-scientific?

Again, I honestly don’t know what else to say here. If you truly don’t see that statement as anti-scientific, IMO that seriously calls into question your ability to discuss this subject rationally. Again I have to wonder if it’s just that you agree with the statement. Do you?

If you are at a loss for words then how is that my doing? It is not anti scientific to apply some kind of interpretation to what we observe, there is always that interpretation whether its explicit or implicit. If you were to observe something that is consistent with evolution then would you interpret that as being evidence of evolution? Yes of course, you would not say "Hmm this looks just like what I'd expect if evolution were at work here but I want to leave open the possibility that it is not evolution, it might be evidence of God for all I know"? No, you would interpret the data as shedding light on evolution, because it has some consistency with the expectations of evolution.

I don't mean to, but most evolutionists here do very quickly resort to labelling me a "creationist" when I critique evolution or the Cambrian explosion. This happens often, and most of the time I've made no mention of God, creation, the Bible. I often begin and focus wholly on the data, evidence, record, etc. It is a means of attacking me, that to disagree with the prevailing view is justification for calling me a "creationist" this is all part of the problem, the very idea that a person could disagree with some claims of evolution means that must be a "creationist".

It’s interesting that you see “creationist” as a disparaging term. Most creationists I know are rather proud to describe themselves as such. So I have to ask….what is your view regarding the history of life on earth? Are you a young-earth creationist? Old-earth creationist? Something else?

It is used often in a disparaging way, the term is often used in conjunction with claims of poorly educated, lacking understanding, no grasp of science, and so on. It should not be (and is not in philosophical discourse) because it is a legitimate rational position to hold as exemplified in this old debate:

I can't agree, you are implying that any organization that today has those rules is by definition not a scientific organization but why? this sounds like a No True Scotsman argument.

Um….yes, I am arguing that an organization that requires its employees to sign something like AiG’s statement of faith is not a scientific organization.

Why? all organizations have rules of membership, unless those rules call for one to be dishonest, falsify data and so on, then the presence of rules has no bearing on whether science is being undertaken.

As I said before (and you've seemed to ignored) the majority of those who drove the scientific revolution were Christians, they held to the tenets of whatever Church they were members of, this is true of Galileo, Newton and so on, were these people not doing science in your opinion? Did the fact that they agreed to these ecclesiastical rules prevent them from doing science?

According to your reasoning they were not real scientists, they could not have done real science, perhaps you should write to the Royal Society, Nobel Institute, in fact perhaps all of these international science organizations and warn them that most of the science we've been believing for the past four hundred years is bogus because it was done by people who were creationists.

Oh, and btw….AiG even describes themselves as a Christian apologetics ministry. https://answersingenesis.org/ So it looks to me like you’re kinda even disagreeing with AiG!

Not at all, that they describe themselves thus has no bearing on whether they can "do science" this is the kind of sloppy thinking that permeates these discussion forums. Being a Christian and being vocal about why one is a Christian is not in any way incompatible with being a scientist, do you agree with that?

Right so popularity is a factor, peer pressure more so than informed understanding. People don't want to be called names like "creationist" or "Bible thumper" or any of the other often disparaging terms so anyone on the fence will likely just shrug their shoulders and think "OK, I might as well go with Darwin, sounds reasonable to me" and that is true of most of the general public who are passive with respect to science.

Most of the folks I’ve talked with about this issue made it clear that they really don’t care all that much about it; it’s just not really relevant to their daily lives. The main ones who do care are either folks who work in science (and thus are interested in defending science) or are Biblical creationists who see science education as a threat to their prospects of gaining converts.

Note how you seem to think "are either folks who work in science" and "or are Biblical creationists who see science education as a threat to their prospects of gaining converts"!

So what about scientists who are creationists? or is that an oxymoron in your world view? (despite the historic facts I mentioned earlier).

I see well if its hard to say how can you hold the position that it was not instantaneous? that the umpteen already differentiated phyla suddenly appeared? are you admitting that it could have been?

Wait….is it your position that Cambrian-era organisms appeared in a flash….literally “instantaneously”? If that’s what you mean, then no I don’t see that as reasonably possible.

Even if the evidence is consistent with that and has been since Darwin?

Why? did you not read about Chomsky and the Holocaust "denier"? It's a matter of labels and definitions, I mean what is "flat earthism" anyway? what is a "holocaust denier"?

It's fine absolutely fine to disagree with the majority, to beg to differ from the prevailing views, when that is not tolerated, when people are persecuted or ostracized for that then we are - as Chomsky alluded to - adopting the very methods embraced by Stalinism, Nazism or Spanish Inquisition.
Is a person who question some claims about the Nazi extermination program a "holocaust denier"? This is the point Chomsky emphasized and despite himself being a Jew defended the right of the Prof. to express his opinion, share his views, not be silenced by some official ministry of truth.

I've never been a fan of knowledge suppression, sure I'm not saying we actively teach and instruct and test students on the idea the earth is flat but we should not hide it from them, it should be mentioned, there may well be some valuable lessons to be learned from it.
If someone advocates the earth is flat then why not ask the kids how we can decide? what do they think we could do to see if it is or is not? You might be surprised at how many things need to be assumed to show that the earth is not flat, there's some valuable lessons to be learned by being objective and unbiased when studying such claims. Someone might think the earth is flat and actually have a reasonable basis for that, it might not be their fault, they might genuinely have good reason to think its flat, not saying they are right only that they might have reasoned well but missed some detail perhaps.

I once knew a guy who would drop into a local pub that we computer programmers often hung out in in the early 1980s. We were mostly in our 20s and most of us were pretty bright and well versed in technical subjects. This guy was kind of famous in the pub for arguing that the earth was flat and I remember many an evening when some of us, me included would merrily "debate" with him as we supped our ale. He held his own, he'd often stump one or more of us not because we were idiots but because we were not mentally or epistemologically equipped to scientifically defend our belief in a globe. That was a valuable experience, I'd almost forgotten about it too, but the whole exercise was instructive, he knew the earth was not flat of course but man he could defend that it was pretty well.

Avoiding censorship, avoiding declaring unquestionable truths is not the same as having no structure or scope to a subject. Making kids aware that there are minority views, that not everybody shares the majority view, that there are examples where a majority may have been wrong, that there are examples where a minority turned out be right, etc., that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

If a kid did wonder about those things, then what harm is that? they might learn unexpected things about geography, map making or the Nazi party, the nature of the history of WW2 and so on. You seem to be worried that only bad consequences can arise and discount any possibility of a good.

Honestly, after I asked you for specific recommendations on how you’d change how science is taught and you replied “add a philosophy requirement”, I’ve kinda lost interest in discussing this sub-topic with you.

Very well.

Are they required to teach "evolution is a fact"? because that right there is anti-science !

Again, evolution is a fact.

As is the Cambrian exploision, the antithesis of evolution.

I have no trouble with facts, it is extrapolations claimed as facts that I have a serious problem with. Evolution as the mechanism for all life we see today is quite simply an inference, it is scientific induction, as I said before induction from facts does not a new fact make.

Well....yeah. As I keep pointing out, every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution.

No it doesn't, this is supposition. The compound eye in early Cambrian life is but one example where evolution is assumed, ineferred. How can you show that every ability, trait or gene arose because of evolution? where you present to watch 550 million years ago? It is therefore inferred.

Constantly implying, STATING, that inferences are facts is not science, no other scientific disciplines abuses the terms to this extent. Why is it that evolutionists routinely do this? other disciplines don't seem to suffer frome the insecurities that the evolution club does.

Thus it's entirely reasonable to infer that the same is true of the past. It's really no different than geologists inferring that specific types of ash came from volcanoes, since we only see that same sort of ash coming from volcanoes today.

This is a strawman because I never once said that evolution was not reasonable, never once said that inference and induction in science were not reasonable, what I have said is that inferences are not facts, there is always a possibility they are wrong.

Tell me more about this claim for "new species" please.

We've seen multiple examples of the evolution of new species, both in the lab and in the wild, and in diverse taxa such as plants, insects, birds, reptiles, and fish. Even some young-earth creationist organizations acknowledge this reality (speciation is needed under their Biblical flood scenarios).

I see and an example would be?

No, such assumptions are not only unreasonable they are scientifically irrelevant and a discredit to science and scientific debate. They are simply fallacious arguments like the genetic fallacy or ad hominem attacks.

Oh, well maybe that's something we need to clear up. There is no scientific debate between evolution and creationism. As I said before, creationism (in all its forms) is 100% scientifically irrelevant and has been for at least a century.

There is a scientific debate, what do you call this discussion we are having? what do you call the various rebuttals were to Meyer's book? what do you call the many debates between people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss, Lennox, Craig, Atkins are if they are not debates!

My presumed motive for critiquing evolution is not important, not if we're pursuing a scientific discussion, science as you well know deals with observations, inferences, models, data, tests not the personal beliefs, gender, race or sexual proclivity of the individuals.

Yeah, it kinda is important. If you're the type of creationist who agrees with AiG's statement of faith for example, that tells me a lot about how you approach the data and whether it's worth the effort to provide you any. So if you could answer, I'd appreciate it.

No it is absolutely not relevant. When students hand you their papers or homework do you ask them if they are creationists? do you ask them if they believe in God, before you mark their paper? I work at a large university and I think we both know the correct answer to this question...

I want to discuss the science, the facts, the data, the fossil record, etc you want to discuss my beliefs? my views on the Bible? this is what I was talking about, the thought police.

As soon as you permit this kind of thing it becomes theater, like me saying "Pretty much every evolution organization that's existed has had an overt non-religious motive".

If you had evidence of that, it would certainly be noteworthy.

Fair question, my primary motive is to leave a public record of exchanges like the one we are having. Then open minded individuals, those who may not have a huge attachment to God or evolution, can see the discussion unfold and assess for themselves the merits of our respective cases.

Am I a Christian? I suppose I am, I am of the opinion that Christ did exist and the records we have are representative of true events, that he possessed and shared knowledge that to this day is profound, sometimes puzzling, in many ways fantastical.

I'm happy to discuss these question too but I don't want to derail this thread, my motives are irrelevant though an argument rests on its premises and reasoning nothing more.

That didn't really answer the question I asked. Are you a creationist? If so, what type (young earth, old earth, ID creationist, something else)?

So you no longer want to talk about the Cambrian, the challenges facing evolution theory, as is often the case in these discussions the evolutionist wants to talk about the motives, beliefs of his opponent, you do realize that this is the standard definition of an ad-hominem attack? it is fallacious in a debate.

As you wish, it is though irrelevant, it seems little more than grasping for some kind of argument from authority.

LOL...this is a pretty standard creationist two-step. You present the "dissent from Darwin list" as if folks should find it compelling, but then when you're shown that it pales in comparison to the number of scientific organizations across the world, you wave that away as "arguing from authority". Well then.....what was your point in citing the dissenters list, if not to present it as some sort of authority? By what metric are the signatories to that list compelling, but the agreement from the worlds' academies of science not?

I presented the dissenters list in response to a question I believe.

So, you'll be signing it then? if not why not?

Because as this thread shows, it's primary use is for evolution denying propaganda.

I see, so collectives that deny evolution are "propaganda" but those who affirm it are not? The fact is there is propaganda that is pro evolution and there is propaganda that is ant evolution, this is true, people write for audiences and influencing that audience is their objective, this is not unique to "creationists".

I do not believe the Cambrian animals evolved, there was no common descent, the first emergence of the phyla (pretty much the same body plans that exist to this day) was sudden and is not the result of differentiation over hundreds of thousands of generations, the presumed "branches" never existed. There is no evidence for any of these claims yet each claim has to be true for the Cambrian animals to have evolved.

If I reason correctly then this amounts to a falsification of the theory, if the Cambrian fauna spontaneously appeared then we know that life can spontaneously appear (we already know that the universe spontaneously appeared) and we can by extension conclude that the mechanism of evolution (which may still play a role once an organism exists) is not how life developed.

This should clear it up.

No, you didn't answer the question I asked. I asked if you believe that no population has ever evolved, ever. Do you believe that not one has ever evolved a new trait, ability, or genetic sequence? Not one new species has ever been observed to evolve? Forget the Cambrian for a second and focus your answer on what I actually asked.

That's right, I did not answer the question because once again you are eager to change the subject, rather than talk about the glaring abyss that the Cambrian represents you want to talk about something else. The fact is that even if there was convincing evidence that a new species did evolve, even if there was convincing evidence that genes changed over time, that cannot help with the Cambrian.

I do not know the scope of your question, perhaps you can give me examples and ask if I regard that as compelling evidence that the Cambrian fauna must have evolved.

I'm not asking about the Cambrian. I'm asking about over the course of the history of life on earth, do you believe that no population ever evolved a new trait, ability, genetic sequence, or species?

I don't know, this is why I asked for an example of what you mean.

I'm OK with facts, populations do seem to change over time but whether we can say they "evolve" is another matter.

Why?

No I'm not equating them, and rather than ask me questions why not answer "Why, tell me why, I should believe each of the phyla had an ancestry, that any pair of phyla had a common ancestor when there is no trace of them?"

What other mechanism do you know of that generates new species? You seem to be arguing that the past was completely different, and that new species came about via some non-evolutionary means. So what do you believe happened?

So rather than explain why "I should believe each of the phyla had an ancestry, that any pair of phyla had a common ancestor when there is no trace of them?" Instead you ask me what the alternative might be? what other mechanism might be?

I take it then, that you are saying one should believe the Cambrian ancestors existed because if one did not one would need another explanation, but we don't have another explanation, therefore we must believe it was evolution despite there being no evidence.

You call that a scientific argument? You'll notice that I have not speculated on the cause of the Cambrian, I don't know the cause of the Cambrian (and I've said this several times) I am simply confident that evolution is untenable in the cold light of day.

Your concern (it seems) is that there is no palatable alternative to evolution so we must cling to evolution despite absence of evidence, evidence matters to you, the lack of evidence does not, it is glossed over, apparent not real, nothing to worry about!

Sudden is used to convey the absence of evidence for gradual, that is to convey the absence of what one would reasonably expect had they evolved. Sudden indicates an inconsistency with evolutionary expectations which rely on gradual, as in no evolutionist argues that jellyfish can become an animal with a thousand times the complexity in a few generations.

You're kinda dodging the point. When paleontologists describe the Cambrian explosion as "sudden", they're talking in terms of tens of millions of years, are they not?

Yes that's the typical time window I've seen mentioned. They regard the "unannounced" (their term) appearance (insofar as the fossils and strata are concerned) during that time frame to be "sudden" so sudden they use the term "explosion" for it. It seems they expect such complexity and diversity to arise over a much longer period, given that for most of the preceding 3.5 billion years little more than bacteria and very simple life is all that existed.

Like "atheism" there are many to choose from but it wasn't claimed to be a definition, it was an answer to how I'm using the term here.

So you just made it up?

That's how I'm using the term here.

No, I would not call it a conspiracy. It is better described as a system that has become intolerant of dissent, a dogma.

What do you think is driving that alleged intolerance of dissent? Why would scientists do that sort of thing?

Scientists are humans, they have egos, they can love, hate and lie as much as any other profession. The question should be why would anyone do that sort of thing, being a scientist does not impute some high standard of morality over the rest of the human race.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do we have a better explanation for all the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record?

How does one define "better"? what exactly is an "explanation" anyway? do you know?

My question was simple and to the point.

It seems that you find the ToE (theory of evolution) to be wanting. Do you not have another idea that you feel better explains how we arrived at all the animals, not only on earth now, but also in the fossil record?

I would love to compare it to my understanding of the ToE.

Your question is a digression with the intent to move from the subject to another subject.

The implication is that it doesn't matter if evolution faces big problems, because unless we have another palatable explanation evolution must be true!

This is what you learned in school or university as being science? that a theory can only be flawed if we have another better, palatable theory waiting for us?

Perhaps its me, I always thought that falsification was when the empirical expectations of a theory were found to be contrary to observation, but as you say that doesn't matter, a theory is a fact no matter what and only gets abandoned as fact if and when we have another theory.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

[Clownboat]

My question was simple and to the point.

It seems that you find the ToE (theory of evolution) to be wanting. Do you not have another idea that you feel better explains how we arrived at all the animals, not only on earth now, but also in the fossil record?

I would love to compare it to my understanding of the ToE.

Your question is a digression with the intent to move from the subject to another subject.

This is false. My question is not a digression and it does not have the intent to move the subject to another subject. It is an honest inquiry and very on point. See the title of the thread please. Hearing a better explination may just in fact suggest things about the ToE.

The implication is that it doesn't matter if evolution faces big problems, because unless we have another palatable explanation evolution must be true!

This is false and a non sequitur.

This is what you learned in school or university as being science? that a theory can only be flawed if we have another better, palatable theory waiting for us?

This is false and is begging the question.

Perhaps its me, I always thought that falsification was when the empirical expectations of a theory were found to be contrary to observation, but as you say that doesn't matter, a theory is a fact no matter what and only gets abandoned as fact if and when we have another theory.

This is not a logical falicy, but a lie, as I have in fact not said such a thing.

Perhaps by rejecting established science, you place yourself in a position of power? Suddenly, you would get to feel like you're the expert. I suppose that would be a good feeling and one a person might want to maintain if that is what's really going on here.

[Clownboat]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

It seems you are just projecting.
You see, I have no dog in the fight as to needing the ToE to be true. My life wouldn't change if it was shown to not be a good explination. I have no desire/need to defend it as it is not tied to any heaven, hell or god beliefs.

You cannot say the same and therefore have a dog in the fight. It would server you well to acknowledge this and to not project such a need on to those of us that don't have a dog in the fight. I have nothing to lose if the Toe is found to be false or wanting.

[Sherlock Holmes]

My question was simple and to the point.

It seems that you find the ToE (theory of evolution) to be wanting. Do you not have another idea that you feel better explains how we arrived at all the animals, not only on earth now, but also in the fossil record?

I would love to compare it to my understanding of the ToE.

Your question is a digression with the intent to move from the subject to another subject.

This is false. My question is not a digression and it does not have the intent to move the subject to another subject. It is an honest inquiry and very on point. See the title of the thread please. Hearing a better explination may just in fact suggest things about the ToE.

The implication is that it doesn't matter if evolution faces big problems, because unless we have another palatable explanation evolution must be true!

This is false and a non sequitur.

This is what you learned in school or university as being science? that a theory can only be flawed if we have another better, palatable theory waiting for us?

This is false and is begging the question.

Perhaps its me, I always thought that falsification was when the empirical expectations of a theory were found to be contrary to observation, but as you say that doesn't matter, a theory is a fact no matter what and only gets abandoned as fact if and when we have another theory.

This is not a logical falicy, but a lie, as I have in fact not said such a thing.

Perhaps by rejecting established science, you place yourself in a position of power? Suddenly, you would get to feel like you're the expert. I suppose that would be a good feeling and one a person might want to maintain if that is what's really going on here.

Very well, I apologize. No, I do not have another explanation to offer you.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

It seems you are just projecting.
You see, I have no dog in the fight as to needing the ToE to be true. My life wouldn't change if it was shown to not be a good explination. I have no desire/need to defend it as it is not tied to any heaven, hell or god beliefs.

You cannot say the same and therefore have a dog in the fight. It would server you well to acknowledge this and to not project such a need on to those of us that don't have a dog in the fight. I have nothing to lose if the Toe is found to be false or wanting.

First that post was not specifically directed at you.

Second, I don't know what is meant by "projecting".

Third I think the views of a professor and teacher and writer in the sciences about the core shortcomings of evolution have a place in this thread.

My remarks are general and again not directed at any particular individuals, but if you're truly curious about the ToE's shortcomings this is a good place to get some basic idea of them.

[brunumb]

I have no trouble with facts, it is extrapolations claimed as facts that I have a serious problem with. Evolution as the mechanism for all life we see today is quite simply an inference, it is scientific induction, as I said before induction from facts does not a new fact make.

God is an inference, a rational thing to infer from what we observe, that's what I and many people think.

When is an inference not an inference, or should that be when is an inference a fact?

[JoeyKnothead]

What is wrong with teaching that there are some people who think the "holocaust" did not happen? Teaching that there is or was such a view, albeit a minority, is not the same as teaching that view.

You don't have to teach someone that "there are some people who think the "holocaust" did not happen". You just let them know. Students are free to question and even investigate further if that is their interest. But teaching the view is another matter. Is it useful to spend time actually teaching students that the holocaust did not happen? Is it a credible theory? Bulging curricula require us to make cost-benefit judgements all the time.

What is wrong with teaching creationism in science class is the real issue under discussion. The simple answer is that it is not science. It is religion. Christians constantly say that we can't use science to demonstrate the existence of God. Surely we can't then use science to demonstrate that God created everything either. If the empirical evidence exists for the creation hypothesis, then that's another matter.

"Teach the Controversy", is little more'n an attempt to "sneak one by the censors" (of scientific rigor).

[alexxcJRO]

The Cambrian fossils of animals with hard mineralized body parts cover a diverse group, many distinct phyla, diversification must have occurred many thousands of generations in the past. Therefore it is very obvious that there must have been common ancestors and many of these too will have had hard body parts, if you want to speculate that the hard body parts appeared simultaneously across all of the already differentiated animals then your argument is ridiculous and more fantastic than "God".

In addition those who dismiss the Cambrian are in fact guilty of "evolution of the gaps" where there's evidence they sing it from the rooftops, where there's no evidence they all say "well we know evolution is true so we simply haven't found the evidence yet, we know what happened and just because there's no evidence doesn't mean we need the evidence".

1. The Cambrian “explosion” is a very long period ~20 million years. That's a very long time.

2. We have example of animals(in Ediacaran) like Spriggina organism with a bilaterally symmetric body plan and trace fossils (the traces in the sediments (worm-like sediment feeders or detritus feeders)which resemble arthropod trails or traces that show six pairs of symmetrically placed impressions, which resemble trilobite walking trails) may be evidence of pre-cambrian arthropods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spriggina



3. Body-fossil record is super biased towards organisms with hard parts(exoskeletons, skeletons) and Precambrian animals may have been with soft tissue mostly.

4. Local climate and local ecosystem conditions as I see it can be the cause in the sense of a perfect storm where more positive feedback loops activated and enforce each other in complex way leading to an exponential increase in diversity.

Similar to the activation of more positive feedback in the case of global warming in a complex mechanism of enforcement which past a certain threshold would lead to an exponential dangerous increase in temperature and lead to runaway global warming.
Origin of deep burrowing ("Cambrian substrate revolution”) the Ediacaran biota suffered a mass extinction, which lead to an increase in the abundance and complexity of burrowing behaviour. Which had big effect on the substrata which transformed the seabed ecosystems. Substrate oxygenation.
Origin of massive biomineralization caused by increased of certain minerals because of regolith erosion, modification in rate of sea floor spreading, CO2 levels.
Sea level rise/climate change.
Rise in oxygen levels because of change in plankton levels.
The above lead to increase in nutrient flux, habitable volume, oxygenation which increased food web complexity and lead to an increase in the animal phyla diversity, follow up of species diversity and increased the probability of fossils creation(massive biomineralization).


5. Evidence of evolution and transitional fossils post Cambrian.

Instance of a protein developing a novel function:
“FtsZ is a protein encoded by the ftsZ gene that assembles into a ring at the future site of bacterial cell division (also called the Z ring). FtsZ is a prokaryotic homologue of the eukaryotic protein tubulin”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FtsZ

Evolution of tetrapods:




Evolution of whales:




Evolution of birds:



Evolution of humans:





6. Todays example of evolution(few decades):

Bedbugs are becoming a new species of nightmare insects.
“ they didn’t always used to be the terrifying critters we know today. Thousands of years ago, our cave-dwelling ancestors got along perfectly fine with bedbugs — mainly because they were nearly an entirely different species back then. Unfortunately, as humans migrated out of caves and into cities over thousands of years, they brought bedbugs along for the ride. The insects with traits that made them better able to survive their new urban lifestyle — such as being more active at night, when humans sleep, and having longer, thinner legs for hopping away from us quickly — outlived their less-evolved bedbug friends.
In just the last few decades, these city-dwelling insects have become almost an entirely separate species from their cave-dwelling cousins. In addition to their new penchant for the nightlife, today’s urban bedbugs have also evolved resistance to pesticides: They have thicker, waxier exoskeletons (to shield them from toxins) and faster metabolisms (to beef-up their natural chemical defenses). “

Two distinct species of mice are mating and their hybrid mice pups are immune to pesticides.
“Typically, members of two different species can’t mate with one another — and if they do, the offspring they produce are often infertile or so weak they die before they can produce any babies.
In mice, at least 50% of hybrids are sterile. But sometime in the past 50 years, when wandering Europeans brought together the Algerian mouse (Mus spretus) and the common house mouse (Mus musculus), the two species got to mating.
Miraculously, their mice pups were fertile. Although rare, this sort of thing can happen every so often with just the right combination of genes. In addition to their baby-making capabilities, the hybrid mice got another gift from their parents: a chunk of genes that makes them immune to the poison warfarin, meaning they can’t be killed by pesticides.
Unlike the house mice, the Algerian mice had this poison-resistance gene naturally — they likely evolved it as an adaptation to a vitamin-K diet (the same gene that’s responsible for warfarin-immunity manages vitamin K in the body.)”

Clepto sea slugs steal genes from their food and incorporate them into their own DNA.
“How to adapt to survive for months on nothing but sunlight? Try taking a cue from plants. Better yet, steal a few of their genes.
When food in the chilly coastal waters where they live runs scarce, the bright green sea slug snatches chunks of DNA from the algae they eat. Coupled with tiny energy-producing powerhouses called chloroplasts (which the sneaky slugs also pilfer from their algeae meals), the stolen genes are enough to allow the slugs to survive on nothing but sunshine for days.
The best part? The algae genes get passed onto the next generation of slugs.
Although future slugs will then come pre-equipped with the algae genes in their DNA, they'll still need to snatch up new chloroplasts to keep the process going. This gene-swapping process is called horizontal gene transfer. By doing it, the slugs are effectively bypassing traditional evolution, which typically happens over thousands or millions of years. So far, these sea slugs are one of the only known examples of this process occurring between multicellular organisms. “


Moths living around dirty humans evolved darker wings to blend into their sooty surroundings.
“The peppered moth can most easily be spotted on a dark surface: its distinctive off-white wings, speckled with tiny dark spots, make it stand out.
During the industrial revolution in Britain and the US, when humans started pumping their air full of pollutants, that dark soot fell on trees, darkening their bark and endangering the moth, who’d easily be picked out by predators on a shadowy tree. Over several generations, as the lightest moths were eaten and the darker moths tended to survive, the majority of moths in the region became dark via a process called natural selection.
But when pollution control laws in both countries started to scale back the amount of soot in the air in the 1970s, dark moths again became more prone to getting eaten. Today, most moths have returned to their original light color.”

A pest that thrives on one of our favorite foods is developing immunity to the toxins we use to keep it at bay.
“Corn is one of the staples of American cuisine. It's derivatives are in everything from candy and soda to hamburger patties and fast-food taco meat. To soothe our corn sweet tooth, we've begun growing the crop in massive quantities, making powerful pesticides necessary to kill of pests that feed on the increasingly vulnerable plant.
Unfortunately, our overuse of pesticides have, in turn, spurned genetically stronger pests.
When the western corn rootworm, for example, developed a resistance to the chief pesticide in Monsanto's GMO corn (a gene designed to produce a special protein to destroy the worm's digestive tract), the company responded by switching up the pesticide in its corn to another type of protein. The worms evolved to resist it that as well.”


“Microbes in oceans and soils across the globe are evolving to eat plastic, according to a study.
"The research scanned more than 200m genes found in DNA samples taken from the environment and found 30,000 different enzymes that could degrade 10 different types of plastic.
The study is the first large-scale global assessment of the plastic-degrading potential of bacteria and found that one in four of the organisms analysed carried a suitable enzyme. The researchers found that the number and type of enzymes they discovered matched the amount and type of plastic pollution in different locations.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tudy-finds
https://www.businessinsider.com/example ... scenario-8

Its not that far fetched to infer from 1-5 that animals in the Cambrian evolved from previous forms.

On the other hand its ridiculous and incredibly far fetched-magical to say Jesus wanted to speed up the process because what, was taking too long?! He was so anxious to have his humans so he to become human and die for them and save them from what, Yahweh? Who is in fact himself.
Laughable.
Also if magical explanations are allowed why do we have to have intelligent design. We can say that all phyla came to our universe/dimension from a parallel universe/dimension(where evolution begun faster) though a natural process which allowed for things from one universe/dimension to come to our dimension/universe.