DNA information

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It's just a wall of copy-pasta with little to no relevance. What are you even trying to say with this irrelevant text? How does it impact Dragan's claim?

Seriously, can you spend like 2 minutes trying to read what other posters write, and then actually address it, instead of just brainlessly scanning your own webpage for a large chunck of text with only tangential relevance to copy-paste in here? This is ridiculous. You might as well just run around on the streets and literally throw bibles in peoples faces while you yell "READ THIS READ THIS READ THIS".

You're like the forum version of the yelling street preacher who is bothering everyone on the train by standing in the walking isle and yelling at random travelers. Sit down and shut the fuck up please.

If that :

natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.

is not relevant, i don't know what is.... LOL......

Apart from not addressing my response to you, as Rumraket has pointed out, let me address this response of yours.

In quoting Meyer, you've left out the important caveat...

If this is so, natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.

Is it?

In order to answer this, let's look at what Meyer says in what precedes it, shall we?

Many cellular structures are built from proteins, but proteins find their way to correct locations in part because of preexisting three-dimensional patterns and organization inherent in cellular structures.

What codes for proteins? Genes.

What about the interaction between the environment and genes? In other words, evolution?

Is Meyer suggesting that that really has nothing to do with it at all?

Is Meyer implying that these "preexisting" and "inherent" structures are the result of some deus ex machina?

Given that he doesn't accept evolution, this is inevitable - despite the fact that what he puts forth in the book is equally consistent with theistic evolution, pantheism and deism.

But those are not what he wants to offer in place of his chosen, preconceived bias - ID (Creationism by any other name).

Neither structural proteins nor [sic] the genes that code for them can alone determine the three-dimensional shape and structure of the entities they build.

What about both together?

What about both in conjunction with their interaction with the environment?

No-one is suggesting that they're acting on their own.

Gene products provide necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the development of three-dimensional structure within cells, organs, and body plans.

So, to make his case, he ignores the environment - in other words, the key factor in evolution.

If this is so, then natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.

Since no-one has suggested that genes and gene products alone determine the morphology of life-forms, his conditional conclusion - that natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone - is false.

This is symptomatic of how Meyer slips in his conclusion without actually discussing the relevant evidence in the preceding text. Having dealt with certain factors separately - genes and gene products - whilst ignoring the key factor - the environment - he then declares natural selection per se doesn't work, without ever having mentioned the environment - the whole basis for evolution.

For what it's worth, his book dances around the idea that "new information" (à la Dembski's drivel "complex specified information") must have been created by the "designer" to account for the Cambrian Explosion, so he can insert God into the mix - he ignores any evidence for organisms that led to the Cambrian.

If you want to learn about the Cambrian Explosion, read The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Elshamah]

he ignores any evidence for organisms that led to the Cambrian.
.

ah yah ? what organisms are that ? how about you show where the fossils are, which lead to the animals that lived in the cambrian ? :lol:

 

[Deleted member 619]

he ignores any evidence for organisms that led to the Cambrian.
.

ah yah ? what organisms are that ? how about you show where the fossils are, which lead to the animals that lived in the cambrian ? :lol:

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm

 

[Rumraket]

he ignores any evidence for organisms that led to the Cambrian.
.

ah yah ? what organisms are that ? how about you show where the fossils are, which lead to the animals that lived in the cambrian ? :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota

It gets even better, because the very first section on the Cambrian Explosion explains some of the precursors from the precambrian, and how the earliest cambrian animals were simpler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

In fact the wiki article on the Cambrian explosion is actually very good.

 

[momo666]

Do you guys make any sense out of the following?

"If you claim naturalism is true or that Evolution entails the spontaneous creation of semiotic information in the first life form, then yes...that's exactly what you claim but aren't realizing it. We are talking about 'ultimate' sources. If naturalism is true (or atheism for that matter) then the ultimate source of semiotic information is 'nothing'."

 

[SpecialFrog]

Do you guys make any sense out of the following?

"If you claim naturalism is true or that Evolution entails the spontaneous creation of semiotic information in the first life form, then yes...that's exactly what you claim but aren't realizing it. We are talking about 'ultimate' sources. If naturalism is true (or atheism for that matter) then the ultimate source of semiotic information is 'nothing'."

I question whether "semiotic information" means anything in that context. Also, I don't think anyone claims that the first life form involved the spontaneous creation of anything. Most likely there was a gradual transition from "things we wouldn't call life" to "things we would call life" without an easily-identifiable point when it crossed the boundary.

But if you take "nothing" to mean "empty space and some minimal set of rules" or something similar then yes, that last statement is mostly true.

I don't see why that is anything like a problem for naturalism.

 

[momo666]

Well first I would like to know more about this "semiotic information" and if it really plays a role in biology. And second if the Miller-Urey experiment touches this problem.

As far as I know they were able to create organic compounds out of "non-life" so to speak. Does that show we can get that first "information" out of non-life ? What about the episode 3 from season 6 ofThrough the Wormhole ? Watch from minute 2 to minute 7. What do you think about that?

 

[Elshamah]

Well first I would like to know more about this "semiotic information" and if it really plays a role in biology. And second if the Miller-Urey experiment touches this problem.

As far as I know they were able to create organic compounds out of "non-life" so to speak. Does that show we can get that first "information" out of non-life ? What about the episode 3 from season 6 ofThrough the Wormhole ? Watch from minute 2 to minute 7. What do you think about that?

making the building blocks to create life is one thing. To stick ribonucleotides and amino acids together in a meaningful way to yield information to build proteins, and a organism, is imho a completely different task.

Both are extremely unlikely to happen by natural forces.

 

[Elshamah]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

In fact the wiki article on the Cambrian explosion is actually very good.

there is a enormous gap, and you know that. where are the precursors of trilobites ?

 

[SpecialFrog]

I've tried to work out whether "biosemiotics" actually amounts to anything of substance and I'm still not sure.

I found this defence of it by Claus Emmeche, who appears to be a leading figure in the field.

It's not that new (1999) but he basically acknowledges that there is no current reason to think that a semiotic model of biology is necessary in that the molecular / reductionist model explains everything sufficiently at present while holding out the possibility that semiotic tools could lead to new insights in that area.

So biosemiotics seems to be seen as a potentially useful different perspective.

But I think creationists have latched onto "semiotic information" as the new magic word that means "the kind of information that can't have come from natural processes" and their use of it is meaningless.

If anyone has anything else worth reading on the subject would be interested.

 

[Rumraket]

By the way momo666, I'm writing my post as we speak, but it is turning out rather long so it will probably be few days before I can be bothered to finish it. I just ask for a little patience and I think it will also answer many of the subsequent questions you pose in your other posts, because they cover many of the same topics.

 

[Rumraket]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

In fact the wiki article on the Cambrian explosion is actually very good.

there is a enormous gap, and you know that. where are the precursors of trilobites ?

I don't know, but let me ask you this: Does the absense of clear precursors of trilobites in particular refute the general observation of "from less to more complex" over the fossil history of life? No.

Suppose I ask you to show me your great-great-great-great-great grandfather's grave and you can't find it. What am I supposed to conclude from that? That your paternal family line was divinely and instantaneously created some 400 years ago? Obviously not.

So what is your question supposed to achieve?

 

[momo666]

Take as much time as you need mate. And let your post be as long as you want it to be, I've always enjoyed a good read on an interesting subject.

 

[Rumraket]

Well first I would like to know more about this "semiotic information" and if it really plays a role in biology. And second if the Miller-Urey experiment touches this problem.

As far as I know they were able to create organic compounds out of "non-life" so to speak. Does that show we can get that first "information" out of non-life ? What about the episode 3 from season 6 ofThrough the Wormhole ? Watch from minute 2 to minute 7. What do you think about that?

making the building blocks to create life is one thing. To stick ribonucleotides and amino acids together in a meaningful way to yield information to build proteins, and a organism, is imho a completely different task.

Both are extremely unlikely to happen by natural forces.

How unlikely, exactly?

And what is the likelihood that they were divinely created?

You might be right, the natural origin of life may be utterly and insanely unlikely. But unless you have another probability to compare it to, how do you determine which one is more likely than the other?

What is the number for divine creation?

So natural origins is, supposedly, very low. let's make it 10[sup]-2.500.000[/sup] that it would happen by chance. Ten to the minus two point five millionth power. Is that low enough for you?

But, how do I know whether that is more or less likely than the chance a god would create life? I need that number to compare it to, otherwise I cannot choose between them. So, please calculate the chance of god creating life for me. Remember, show your work!

 

[Elshamah]

I don't know, but let me ask you this: Does the absense of clear precursors of trilobites in particular refute the general observation of "from less to more complex" over the fossil history of life? No.

Suppose I ask you to show me your great-great-great-great-great grandfather's grave and you can't find it. What am I supposed to conclude from that? That your paternal family line was divinely and instantaneously created some 400 years ago? Obviously not.

So what is your question supposed to achieve?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1701-does-fossil-record-support-the-evolution-model-of-gradual-and-small-changes?highlight=fossil

Does fossil record support the evolution model of gradual and small changes?

From a peer reviewed paper by Gene Hunt in 2007:

"Directional evolution is rarely observed within lineages traced through the fossil record. Only ≈5% of cases (13 of 251) are best fit by the directional evolution model (...)
Some previous paleontological studies have used a model of directional change in which evolutionary changes proceed at an absolutely constant rate in the same direction indefinitely (11). Although of heuristic value, most would agree that this model is not realistic over paleontological time scales. (...)
I have used these methods to analyze many fossil sequences, but even the most promising examples (e.g., refs. 21 and 22) do not support models of sustained directional change, although single interval punctuations are sometimes implied (unpublished data). Thus, even relaxing the assumption that evolutionary mode is uniform within lineages, we are still led to the conclusion that directional change is rarely observed over paleontologically significant time scales. (...)
Despite the commonness of stasis, there is little consensus about its cause or causes."


"A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist. Why this lamentable blank? Various theories have been proposed; none is too satisfactory. It has been suggested, for example, that all the Pre-Cambrian sediments were deposited on continental areas, and the absence of fossils in them is due to the fact that all the older animals were seadwellers. But that all these older sediments were continental is a theory which opposes, without proof, everything we know of deposition in later times. Again, it is suggested that the Pre-Cambrian seas were poor in calcium carbonate, necessary for the production of preservable skeletons; but this is not supported by geochemical evidence. Yet again, it is argued that even though conditions were amenable to the formation of fossilizable skeletal parts, the various phyla only began to use these possibilities at the dawn of the Cambrian. But it is, a priori, hard to believe that the varied types present in the early Cambrian would all have, so to speak, decided to put on armour simultaneously. And, once again, it has been argued that the whole evolution of multicellular animals took place with great rapidity in late Pre-Cambrian times, so that a relatively short gap in rock deposition would account for the absence of any record of their rise. Perhaps; but the known evolutionary rate in most groups from the Cambrian on is a relatively leisurely one, and it is hard to convince oneself that a sudden major burst of evolutionary advance would be so promptly followed by a marked 'slowdown'. All in all, there is no satisfactory answer to the Pre-Cambrian riddle."

Romer Alfred S. [late Professor of Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH, 1968, pp.19-20.



"From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ... But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..."

Hoyle, Sir Frederick [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107.



"The only illustration Darwin published in On the Origin of Species was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species into another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fossils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms."

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.3.

 

[Elshamah]

How unlikely, exactly?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

The cell is irreducible complex, and hosts a hudge amount of codified, complex, specified information. The probability of useful DNA, RNA, or proteins occurring by chance is extremely small. Calculations vary somewhat but all are extremely small (highly improbable). If one is to assume a hypothetical prebiotic soup to start there are at least three combinational hurdles (requirements) to overcome. Each of these requirements decreases the chance of forming a workable protein. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond (peptide bond) when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. Assuming, for example a short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. The second requirement is that functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right-handed and left-handed isomers are produced in nearly the same frequency. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form is roughly 1 chance in 10^90. The third requirement for functioning proteins is that the amino acids must link up like letters in a meaningful sentence, i.e. in a functionally specified sequential arrangement. The chance for this happening at random for a 150 amino acid chain is approximately 1 chance in 10^195. It would appear impossible for chance to build even one functional protein considering how small the likelihood is. By way of comparison to get a feeling of just how low this probability is consider that there are only 10^65 atoms in our galaxy.

And what is the likelihood that they were divinely created?

99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% likely, just not to say 100%.....

You might be right, the natural origin of life may be utterly and insanely unlikely. But unless you have another probability to compare it to, how do you determine which one is more likely than the other?

How likely is it that a intelligent mind wrote Hamlet ? How likely is it, that random forces wrote Hamlet ?

 

[Mugnuts]

:facepalm: What on earth makes you think you can introduce "irreducible complexity" into another thread when it was/has/continues to be shown to be wrong?

With that being said, keep it up. You are participating perfectly in how and why the ID'ers and Creationists are full of hot air when trying to chime in on information, evolution, et al.


:lol: ...also it's quite funny because you keep doing the same thing over and over without learning. After a while it will become sad

I for one tend to stay back when I don't have anything much to contribute. Wisdom comes with age.

IMO If you really want to keep pushing Meyer, Behe, Dembski, Luskin, etc, you really should look more into their claims. You need to see how every time they make propositions, calculations, and heaven forbid an actual experiment to back up these claims...Do you see where I'm going? The ID movement has clearly been debunked by sound evidence again and again even by those with faith in god. See Ken Miller. I may not see eye to eye with his views on god, but his science is spot on. That's what matters and that's what happens when you don't allow your biases to contort reality. After actually doing your homework you won't be backing the Discovery Institute at all. it's not possible to do so reasonably. You will have to come to see that they are wasting time, money and actually holding an empty sack when it comes to overall contribution to society. Well maybe not entirely fruitless because all the crap they push has others take the time to find the evidence they are saying doesn't exist, and what do you know...there it is. Foot, I'd like to introduce you to mouth.

I highly doubt you have taken any time at all to read/research any of the real science behind...anything? All we have is a case for a tin foil hat award and a running for a Nephillimfree honorary degree due to how much crap you spout off as if it were your own and such trying to sound/look like you've done research.

What has me interested in your view is how you can be shown to be wrong (mostly by Rumracket here, and hackenslash here and there), yet you can hold on to the same views with out change or deviation. No self reflection. You have to be right. Rinse and repeat, copy and paste, yet nothing else in-between. When is it still reasonable to entertain discussions with those who cannot be reasoned with? lolz here and there are fine, but come on man. Seriously, time to listen to reason.

 

[Rumraket]

How unlikely, exactly?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

The cell is irreducible complex, and hosts a hudge amount of codified, complex, specified information. The probability of useful DNA, RNA, or proteins occurring by chance is extremely small. Calculations vary somewhat but all are extremely small (highly improbable). If one is to assume a hypothetical prebiotic soup to start there are at least three combinational hurdles (requirements) to overcome. Each of these requirements decreases the chance of forming a workable protein. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond (peptide bond) when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. Assuming, for example a short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. The second requirement is that functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right-handed and left-handed isomers are produced in nearly the same frequency. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form is roughly 1 chance in 10^90. The third requirement for functioning proteins is that the amino acids must link up like letters in a meaningful sentence, i.e. in a functionally specified sequential arrangement. The chance for this happening at random for a 150 amino acid chain is approximately 1 chance in 10^195. It would appear impossible for chance to build even one functional protein considering how small the likelihood is. By way of comparison to get a feeling of just how low this probability is consider that there are only 10^65 atoms in our galaxy.

The statement in the title does not match the conclusion of the article. If it is merely unlikely, it isn't impossible.

And what is the likelihood that they were divinely created?

99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% likely, just not to say 100%.....

How do you know? I asked you to show your work. I'm sure you've had math in school where your teacher asked you to show how you got your result. Show your work. Where does the proof that this is the correct number come from?

In your article on the natural origin of life, there was at least a few arguments to be found that tried to work out the probability. Even though the math is all wrong(because it's based on a faulty premise: that life has to start out like modern cells are today), an attempt was actually made to estimate the probability.

Now how do you get that number for divine creation? It looks to me like you have just made it up because nothing has been done to show why that is the number and not another one.

For example, it may be that a god exists, it may be that the universe that god created is infinitely big and that there are an infinity of planets in it, and it may be that that god only creates life on 1 out of every 10^10^10^10^10 planets. That would make it more probable that life originated here naturally, than it were due to that god creating it. In fact it would entail that most life in the universe originated naturally, and only very rarely did god intervene to create it on some planet.

How do you know that this is not the case?

You might be right, the natural origin of life may be utterly and insanely unlikely. But unless you have another probability to compare it to, how do you determine which one is more likely than the other?

How likely is it that a intelligent mind wrote Hamlet ?

Very likely. But:
1. Life is not a piece of English literature. (Case closed already here)
2. We know who wrote Hamlet, we know when he wrote it.
3. We know only human beings are known to actually write things down in English. We know of no such thing about life.
4. Life existed before anyone could write.

How likely is it, that random forces wrote Hamlet ?

Very unlikely.
But how do you know the likelihood of life being created again? The number you made up above, how did you get that number?

 

[Rumraket]

I don't know, but let me ask you this: Does the absense of clear precursors of trilobites in particular refute the general observation of "from less to more complex" over the fossil history of life? No.

Suppose I ask you to show me your great-great-great-great-great grandfather's grave and you can't find it. What am I supposed to conclude from that? That your paternal family line was divinely and instantaneously created some 400 years ago? Obviously not.

So what is your question supposed to achieve?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1701-does-fossil-record-support-the-evolution-model-of-gradual-and-small-changes?highlight=fossil

Does fossil record support the evolution model of gradual and small changes?

From a peer reviewed paper by Gene Hunt in 2007:

"Directional evolution is rarely observed within lineages traced through the fossil record. Only ≈5% of cases (13 of 251) are best fit by the directional evolution model (...)
Some previous paleontological studies have used a model of directional change in which evolutionary changes proceed at an absolutely constant rate in the same direction indefinitely (11). Although of heuristic value, most would agree that this model is not realistic over paleontological time scales. (...)
I have used these methods to analyze many fossil sequences, but even the most promising examples (e.g., refs. 21 and 22) do not support models of sustained directional change, although single interval punctuations are sometimes implied (unpublished data). Thus, even relaxing the assumption that evolutionary mode is uniform within lineages, we are still led to the conclusion that directional change is rarely observed over paleontologically significant time scales. (...)
Despite the commonness of stasis, there is little consensus about its cause or causes."


"A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist. Why this lamentable blank? Various theories have been proposed; none is too satisfactory. It has been suggested, for example, that all the Pre-Cambrian sediments were deposited on continental areas, and the absence of fossils in them is due to the fact that all the older animals were seadwellers. But that all these older sediments were continental is a theory which opposes, without proof, everything we know of deposition in later times. Again, it is suggested that the Pre-Cambrian seas were poor in calcium carbonate, necessary for the production of preservable skeletons; but this is not supported by geochemical evidence. Yet again, it is argued that even though conditions were amenable to the formation of fossilizable skeletal parts, the various phyla only began to use these possibilities at the dawn of the Cambrian. But it is, a priori, hard to believe that the varied types present in the early Cambrian would all have, so to speak, decided to put on armour simultaneously. And, once again, it has been argued that the whole evolution of multicellular animals took place with great rapidity in late Pre-Cambrian times, so that a relatively short gap in rock deposition would account for the absence of any record of their rise. Perhaps; but the known evolutionary rate in most groups from the Cambrian on is a relatively leisurely one, and it is hard to convince oneself that a sudden major burst of evolutionary advance would be so promptly followed by a marked 'slowdown'. All in all, there is no satisfactory answer to the Pre-Cambrian riddle."

Romer Alfred S. [late Professor of Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH, 1968, pp.19-20.



"From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ... But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..."

Hoyle, Sir Frederick [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107.



"The only illustration Darwin published in On the Origin of Species was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species into another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fossils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms."

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.3.

All these quotes are actually irrelevant. They are talking about different topics, not whether life has in fact gone from less to more complex over the history of life.

Seriously Elsamah, why don't you actually read the quotes yourself? We are, once again, discussing two completely different subjects. One of your quotes relate to the debate about phyletic gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium, another is about whether evolution has intrinsic directions (always tends towards some particular outcome).

What is funny and sad is that exactly zero of them are about the overall history of life on this planet, which the fossil record shows has gone from less complex to more complex over time. Do you know why this is not the subject of any of your quotes? Because it's not a subject worth debating, because the facts are not in dispute by anyone who bothers to actually check them.

One of them is just plain wrong and trivially so. Your "late professor of Zoology" writes "A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist.". This is just outright and plainly false. But of course, the quote is from 1968 so it's only 40 years out of date, I guess we can forgive our dear late professor for not having kept up. Did we not fucking link you several times entire fucking articles on precambrian fossil life? Then why bring a quote that is instantly disproved by a mere reading of a preceding post? This is idiotic in the extreme.

You are the worst fucking defender of creationism I have ever seen. Honestly, I have never seen anyone so completely and utterly unable to rationally defend their position as you. You don't even try, it is all just mindless copy-paste shit of little to no relevance.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You are the worst fucking defender of creationism I have ever seen. Honestly, I have never seen anyone so completely and utterly unable to rationally defend their position as you. You don't even try, it is all just mindless copy-paste shit of little to no relevance.

Honestly, I do not think Elshamah is worse than Bernhard.visscher. At least Elshamah is internally consistent with his copy/paste nonsense.