Evolution or not?

It's just an analogy. If there's no alternative then there's no choice. We descended from man-like creatures, which in turn descended from somewhat less man-like creatures, who in turn descended from less manlike creatures still, ... but all the same, more like men than a bumble bee. There's no alternative possibility.

<<The more recent one ( also done by evolutionists ) shows we didn't descend from ape-like dude creatures.>>

Like I said, don't believe everything.

It's a bit like being asked to study because seven nines are sixty-one and if you don't know that, you're a know-nothing dude, dude.

And the Cambrian animals descended from nothing. How could that be? 😕

Oh, I don't know. If you explain your argument more clearly, I might know what point you're raising.

Dawkins makes my point pretty well. 'It's as if they were planted there'.

This argument is getting confusing.

The Cambrian animals appeared on the scene approximately 525 million years ago Muhammed. Within 5-6 million years during the Adtabanian and Tommotian periods of the Cambrian 16 phyla, 30 classes, and many more orders, families and species appeared in the geological record for the first time. They had completely new body plans with completely new body structures, organs, digestive systems, skeletons, nervous systems, brains, circulatory networks, etc., that had never been seen before.

The interesting thing about the Cambrian period is that

there are no proceeding animal forms from which the Cambrian animals could possibly have evolved from. Well, a few annealids and that's about it.

Gould summed it up by saying, 'The idea of smoothly transitioning forms will no longer wash'.

Yes einstein.This should remind us with Aristotle fallacy.It is when he failed to predict free fall object based on his present experiences of weighing.He predicted the heavier object will fall faster than the lighter.Our present experiences is not always suitable to judge other phenomena.Because it could be a completely different experience.

Evolution is largely irrelevent for modern day society.

Except for the lagging ability to digest alcohol (American Indians) and digest lactose in cow's milk (African Americans), there has hardly been any "evolution" of the human species over most of recorded history -- the past 10,000 years of human society.

We live in Society, not in a jungle or savannah (from 5 million years ago).  The speed of evolution is absolutely glacial compared to the speed of "societal evolution."

The hockey stick phenomena of human advancement comes with capitalism (circa 1600 to today).  And there has been damn little human biological evolution in the past 400 years.

On balance, the evolution debate today is largely for people who want to throw tomatoes at religion, or at the secular materialists and atheists.

The compendium of threads on this crazy topic gives evidence to this overwhelming tendency -- to simply butt heads.  

Unitary causation is the refuge of pinheads, and Scientism.

Please make a note of it.

Search engines are very useful for getting a fix on the bare essentials of a problem, which can then be further researched. Incidentally, Google is biassed and should probably be avoided.

<<It's called the c-value paradox, and it really throws a monkey wrench in Darwinian descent. Its basically the size of the genome configured by its weight. Some bacteria have bigger genomes than humans.>>

No it doesn't. It's used by some people as a focus for criticism of that which they don't understand, perhaps.

You really should join that group. There are plenty of people who know far more than me about this.

Yeah I probably will, but I want to study the whole thing on my own first so I don't get false information from people who don't know what they're talking about.

Oh, but it does Optimissed. If genomic information is building up slowly, then you wouldn't expect some bacteria to have bigger genomes than humans. You also wouldn't expect genome variations of a hundred fold within families of animals. These aren't gene duplications or junk DNA from bad mutations just sitting around, this is designed information which is necessary for the animals function. One would expect all kinds of mutational screw ups sitting around if random processes had any real creative power. They would also weigh the cell down to the point of not being able to function. Due to the fact that we don't see any sitting around suggests that random processes don't really have much of a role in evolutionary processes. What we do see are really amazingly designed creatures.

I expect what turns up. If that turned up then there's a good *evolutionary* reason for it.

Don't you realise that you are doing exactly what you dislike in evolutionists? You are rationalising your ideology.

Not rationalizing Optimissed, I'm reasoning. If you see some flaws in my reasoning let me know, because I would want to be the first to correct it.

There are always flaws in reasoning when you choose premises that support your case and reject those that don't. :)

zborg, only science deniers use words like "scientism".>>

Perhaps that's not quite fair though. Scientism is meant to portray a sort of unthinking adherence to mainstream scientific ideas, even when they may not be supported by all the data. It's important to be fair and, if possible, impartial. Just as there are words to describe those who unthinkingly support mythologically based moral story-telling in the face of recognised facts, maybe the other side of the coin is a bit more subtle but, well, let's try an example.

Given that belief in the possibility of the paranormal (such as telepathy) isn't supported by what is seen as mainstream science, it would be the mark of "scientism" to deny that it may be possible; or to claim that people who believe in it or accept its possibility are stupid in some way or are science-deniers.

I have no problem with magic and I think it is certainly real. But fortunately that point isn't necessary to support your otherwise excellent argument.

The intense polarisation is partly what's causing it. If you and others can relent a bit regarding your persecution of beliefs in magical ideas, maybe the idiot element of anti-evolutionism and religion at all costs will also abate slghtly?

After all, people who believe in, say, telepathy aren't what makes America a laughing stock. The problem is the failure to educate the masses in science to a degree that they can begin to think a little for themselves.