The Cambrian Explosion an enigma for Darwinists

The Cambrian radiation really does not present many problems for evolution.

First it took place over millions of years (the use of the word "Explosion" is hyperbole). Second, there is a large, and growing database of evidence suggesting fairly complex pre-Cambrian animal life forms, it did not suddenly appear from nothing. Third, the relatively simple modification from a diploblastic body form to a true triploblastic form (with true mesoderm) would have required relatively few genetic changes and could have resulted in a plethora of potential new body forms.

No serious scientist looses any sleep over the nonsense that all of this is some great nightmare.

“…suggesting fairly complex pre-Cambrian animal life forms.” Perhaps you can enlighten us as to a few of the “complex” organisms, Doctor.
“…the relatively simple modification from a diploblastic body form to a true triploblastic form (with true mesoderm) would have required relatively few genetic changes and could have resulted in a plethora of potential new body forms.” That does indeed sound pretty authoritative, especially with the use of esoteric terminology unfamiliar to most readers, but is pure speculation and nonsense. The formation of germ layers that ultimately differentiate into brain, heart, muscle, skin, digestive tract, immune system, coagulation systems and on and on remains one of the greatest mysteries in biology. In essence, that’s what “stem cell’ studies are all about. To claim that this was a simple mutation or two (or thousand) that allowed the development from simple organisms to widely diverse complex organisms is beyond hyperbole--it's fantasy.

The term "Cambrian explosion" was not coined by creationists. It has been in wide use for decades and describes the realtive explosion of complexity and phyla in a very short period of geologic time (by evolutionists reckoning), about 75 million years. Creationists call this "Creation."

dr theo "pure speculation and nonsense " Calling a scientific theory that tens of thousands of scientists all over the world believes in simply " nonsense" sounds pretty authoritative as well.Also a little surprised that you would flippantly refer to the 'formation of germ layers that ultimately differentiate into brain, muscle, skin,digestive tract, immune system etc. ' as mere fantasy. Using such strong perjorative terms does nothing to make or break a discussion. Why do this ? Sounds like something the acerbic Richard Dawkins would say. Rather than meaningless terms like fantasy and nonsence, wouldn't it be more professional and scientific to say that 'I don't see any evidence that supports that claim'. Can't the tone remain civil ?

I bet also that if you told someone 300 years ago that a couple of strands of chemicals from each parent transform into skin, brain, immune systems, digestive tracts, that they might consider it...as you say... nonsense and fantasy.

Also, if you read about the Ediacaran fauna fossils found in the Precambrian era, you will see that complexed, multicellular, soft-bodied organisms existed prior to the Cambrian.

Speculation that only a few genetic changes were needed to make the leap from multicellular polyps to trilobites and vertebrates is nonsense. There is no scientific evidence for the assertion and no proposed mechanism for changes of such magnitude in such a brief period of time, even accepting for the moment that evolutionary changes do occur.

I am not going to let someone gloss over the incredible complexity of embryonic germ layers and their differentiation with a trite assertion that it would be a "relatively simple modification." The differences in DNA/RNA, biochemistry and proteins would have to be enormous. It is these kinds of wild baseless assumptions upon which so much of Darwinism is built and upon which so many very well-educated scientists argue their absolute confidence in the theory.

The University of California Museum of Paleontology has this to say about Ediacaran fauna: "The Vendian marks the first appearance of a group of large fossils collectively known as the "Vendian biota" or "Ediacara fauna." The question of what these fossils are is still not settled to everyone's satisfaction; at various times they have been considered algae, lichens, giant protozoans, or even a separate kingdom of life unrelated to anything livingtoday. Some of these fossils are simple blobs that are hard to interpret and could represent almost anything. Some are most like cnidarians, worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods. Others are less easy to interpret and may belong to extinct phyla. But besides the fossils of soft bodies, Vendian rocks contain trace fossils, probably made by wormlike animals slithering over mud." OK, evidence of some kind of creatures appears in the late pre-cambrian deposits, but do they qualify as highly complex? See my reply to marfarmerga.

I would like to address some things that you wrote in response to Mr. Ellis, as well. That is that science cannot prove the existence of God. I agree. I cannot force someone to see when they refuse. I can, however, argue that the theories that exclude God are not always tenable. You have not heard me try to make the case for a literal interpretation of Genesis in these discussions, Brian. My intent is to expose the fallacies in much of what has been advanced as explanations of origins, diversity and complexity of life. I do not have to defend my belief in the Bible to point out the inconsistencies and assumptions inherent in competing materialistic theories.

dr theo Your comments that it is " speculation " to say that genetic changes could occur in such a brief period of time( tens of millions of years) to allow or explain a simple animal to evolve into a trilobite or vertebrate is interesting. Motoo Kimora, Masatoshi Nei, Walter Fitch, Walter Gilbert, Joe Felsenstein, Susumo Ohmo , John Gillespie-all world renown molecular biologists/geneticists and highly trained in their field, disagree with you. There are many, many more. They all believe their studies and models explain that accumulated small changes in DNA/RNA, biochemistry and proteins can lead to more highly complexed forms over the tens of millions of years we are talking about.Are you saying their work is simply nonsense and if so what is your expertise in this field to make such a claim.I know I have essentially none. That is why I read as many journals as I can get my hands on. I can't ever remember refering to the studies that I don't find convincing 'fantasy' or 'nonsense'

And I do believe that your pointing out what you feel are fallicies in science, is based on your interpretation of science and would never argue about or expect you to defend your Biblical beliefs.Now that my friend would be NONSENSE on my part.

The world renowned molecular biologists may all agree, but theirs is an opinion that has yet to be proven scientifically. I would like to see the transitional forms as well as an experimentally validated mechanism for such dramatic and far reaching changes. The accumulation of information needed for such changes remains an enigma by all known laws of science and simple probabilities.

It may seem quarrelsome to you, but wishful thinking and an active imagination without supporting evidence does qualify as nonsense and fantasy.

dr theo I think it is fair of you to to " want to see the transitional forms as well as an experimentally validated mechanism for such dramatic and far reaching changes" . These are two separate fields of science as you know- one is the fossil record( a picture) and the other requires a molecular/genetic explanation for simplicity evolving into complexity over tens of millions of years.

Lets start with transitional fossils. At first you were not aware of the complexed,multicellular organisms in the Precambrian, until the Ediacaran fosslis were brought up. Then you accepted them, but suggested that they might be all that complexed. Some measured over a meter in length and were definitely complexed. Then you say well they weren't as complexed as chordates. So now the argument is 'high' complexity. In summary, we have found one celled life in the early Precambrian, more complexed life at the end of the Precambrian and then even much more complexity in the Cambrian.You must admit there is a pattern at least.

My question is how many transitional forms do you need? All of them ? 60% of them ? There are no plant fossils at all in the early Cambrian, but they can be found in later time periods. Are you advocating then that simple animals were around before plants, just because the fossils don't show plant fossils along side one celled animals in the Precambrian ? Or is it because fossilazation requires certain specific requirements that make your demand to see a vast supply of early transitional animal forms a impossible task and you are quite aware of this.

Again we are talking about the fossil record only. The molecular/genetic mechanisms you mentioned are explained by many men/women scientists, creationists and not, pure naturalists or not. I listed a few earlier and would like to add Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University and Dr. Francis Collins who claim the mechanisms have indeed been validated scientifically. Again, that is a different field than fossils, but encourage you to review some of these studies, if you have not yet done so.

"My question is how many transitional forms do you need?"
I'll bite, Dr. Rutledge. I am completely amazed at the complexity of the trilobites' eyes (actually, there three different systems, holochroal, schizochroal, and abathochroal, all presumably evolved independently). I would find it quite a challenge if someone could show me a few transitional organisms with light sensing organs that lead up to compund eyes with doublet crystalline lenses typical of trilobites.

My argument is all about complexity, Brian. I have known for many years about the presumed multicelluar organisms in the Precambrian. The jump to the diversity and complexity of the Cambrian is striking in that there are virtually no contenders for transitional forms leading up to the 38 to 50 phyla evidenced in the fossil record.

"Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University and Dr. Francis Collins who claim the mechanisms have indeed been validated scientifically." Why don't they explain that to we common folks without obfuscating with a lot of pseudo-science-babble, conjecture and speculation. Show me the experiments where they have shown that random bio-chemical processes can generate new and more complex information in a DNA molecule.

dr theo Trilobites ? You want an example of a pre-trilobite, with lightsensing organs, that transitioned into a trilobite with complexed eyes that lived around 600 million years ago, even knowing that this pre-trlibite would have been soft-shelled and not susectible to fossilization ? Well, one hasn't and probably won't be found due to the rarity of Pre-Cambrian fossils .But we do have places like the Burgess Shale( and others) where Pre-Cambrian fossils are abundant and there is a dramatic fossil example of how an unsegmented Pre-Cambrian animal( Parvancorina ) transitions into a trilobite. Parvancorina to Primicaris to Naraoia to Kuamaia to Redlichia is a wonderful example of transitional fossils body shape. Lack of fosslization of the optic system in the Pre-Cambrian has limited the finding of Pre-Trilobite optic tracts, but the body transitions are evident.There are many marine invertebrates today that have only one photoreceptor cell and one pigment cell, but dr theo, we dont have the full awray of 600 million year old fossils that show how the eye with one photorecepteor cell linearly progressed to a complexed eye.

Your last question about bio-chemical processes that generate more complexed info in DNA. Are you familiar with the reverse transcriptase called Telemerase that ADDS segments and info to established DNA molecules

I'll jump in here too and ask Dr. Theo a question. Would you consider a writer who took well established words in the English language and arranged them in such a way that it produced a new and unique poem that had never been written before and that brought forth deep emotions to have created something new? Would you even refer to that poem as an increase in complexity over a simple sentence such as "Run Spot Run"?

Well I have three words for you: Tissue Plasminogen Activator
That is right, the gene that codes for TPA (a unique and complex protein involved in the breakdown of blood clots) is the result of exon shuffling [epidermal growth factor and fibronectin] and exon duplication [plasminogen]. Three differnt genes, on three different chromosomes, brought together to form a NEW gene with a NEW function. An INCREASE in complexity.

You keep asking me for easy to understand examples of why I think you and Dr. Stephen Meyer are wrong when you say that there are no known examples of increases in genetic complexity and yet there are.

I'm not sure why you keep beating that same old drum. Is it to create enough noise to drown me out?

To go from a "Run Spot Run" to an elegant poem requires INTELLIGENCE. OK, so three different proteins from three different genes from three different chromosomes come together to make TPA. Isn't it marvelous! You have not demonstrated an increase in information from chance processes any more than if an edition of "Moby Dick" is put together from paper from Canada, ink from Japan and cover materials from Mexico. The information contained in the book had to have an intelligent source.

My apologies for citing a paper that is now ten years old. Here is the latest research on precambiran fossils demonstrating evidence that bilaterla animals were indeed present on Earth long before the Cambrian radiation.

Chen, J.-Y., Bottjer, D.J., Li, G., Hadfield, M.G., Gao, F., Cameron, A.R., Zhang, C.-Y., Xian, D.-C., Tafforeau, P., Liao, X., and Yin. Z.-J. 2009. Complex embryos displaying bilaterian characters from Precambrian Doushantuo phosphate deposits, Weng’an, Guizhou, China. PNAS v. 105, no. 45, pp. 19056-19060. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0904805106

Your accusations that I simply dismiss the evidence that exists may have some validity. We all interpret the data according to some preconceived world view, and I don't deny mine. But, you do exactly the same while vigorously claiming to be objective and impartial. You will ply us with endless citations that have little relevance to the question "How did the Cambrian radiation happen." Then you dismiss my question about information by asserting that it is an "untestable assumption that all information MUST have an intelligent creator." Why is it untestable? Surely someone could design an elegant demonstration of random, undirected events leading to the accumulation of demonstrably complex new information. Why is that not an achievable objective? Is there something about information that makes it inaccessible to scientific discovery?

Sorry I haven't kept up with the discussion--during the end of the semester and finals things get pretty hectic.

We both know that there is no scientific way to counter the "God did it" argument that you keep falling back on. However....

You asked me and Dr. Rutledge to provide verifiable evidence that is CONSISTENT with evolutionary theory. When we do so (e.g. fossil preCambrian coelomates, TPA or nylonase genes) you quickly dismiss the evidence by either playing the God card or by invoking the untestable assumption that all information MUST have an intelligent creator.

I understand that these are your beliefs, and you are free to hold them dear. However let's just be a little bit honest with each other. Please stop saying there is "No evidence" when in fact there is LOTS of evidence. Granted, you may not want to accept it, or believe that the evidence is flawed in some way, but the scientific approach does not allow you to simply dismiss it without either showing that a) the data is flawed or b) that it does not support the hypothesis.

In these two cases you have done neither of these things. You simply don't believe it.

You make my point for me, Dr. Rutledge. I ask for evidence of the development of the trilobite eye and you tell me about body morphology of fossils that may be triloboid, but occur in the early Cambrian deposits, where we also find fully developed trilobites with fully developed compound, double-lensed eyes.

"Telomerase is an enzyme that adds specific DNA sequence repeats ("TTAGGG" in all vertebrates) to the 3' end of DNA strands in the telomere regions." OK, so how does this explain new complex information from the DNA of simple multicellular organisms of the Pre-cambrian to the incredible complexity and diversity of the Cambrian? Or is this just more obfuscation?

The DNA code is a language fundamentally no different than the English language that carries information (except that DNA is more complicated by exponential orders of magnitude). What you are proposing is that the "Jack and Jill" rhyme that children sing suddenly and spontaneously becomes Melville's "Moby Dick"--evidence, none, mechanism, none. You are a man of immense faith, Dr. Rutledge.

dr theo Don't think I would use the English language as an analogy of why DNA,and it's products, can't change and increase in complexity. English language has slowly( like DNA ) changed over the years by minute progressive changes(like DNA ) such that you wouldn't even recognize it in it's earliest,more simple forms. A random change here and a random there led it to its current different and more complexed state.



No obfuscation on Telemrase. You ask me to give you an example of how information can be added to DNA.But I'll be more specific. Susumu Ohno found that a certain Flavobacterium could create an enirely NEW gene that would produce NEW proteins that would allow it to use nylon as a food source. This new gene, which is NEW INFORMATION and COMPLEXITY, is formed through gene duplication and frame shift mutation. If new genes can be produced and this serves as an example, then new genes are altered to gradually change an organism

Apologize for not knowing what new genes were formed to produce trilobite eyes, but obtaining the DNA of trilobites and their predecessors to study is a little hard to come by these days !!

Your point about the English language is well taken, Dr. Rutledge. You say "English language has slowly( like DNA ) changed over the years by minute progressive changes(like DNA ) such that you wouldn't even recognize it in it's earliest,more simple forms."

It is also true that Susumu Ohno did some pretty amazing things with development of nylonase in some bacteria. It is truly impressive.

May I point out that in both cases, evolution of language and the work of Dr. Ohno, INTELLIGENCE is/was needed to produce the effect, just like in God's creation.

I knew that if we kept at this long enough we would arrive at a point where we can agree.

Perfect ending to this thread.

Dr. Theo,

Given your example of language and DNA (and even poems) I'm curious how you will come to terms with my example of the TPA gene and how exon shuffling leads to new genes of increasing complexity.

Anxiously awaiting your comments.

TPA has been present in humans forever as far as we know. That it is formed of by coding of three different genes proves nothing. How do you know that these were brought together to form a NEW gene with a NEW function? When exactly did that happen? When did mammals NOT have TPA? Perhaps that's how GOD designed this system. You can show me no evidence that it arose by random events.

The DNA code, whether on one gene or several, remains a complex and extensive system of conveying information. You have not demonstrated that that information arose by random, chance occurences.

People keep asking me questions, Professor, and I feel obliged to try to answer.

Dr. Theo writes: "Perhaps you can enlighten us as to a few of the “complex” organisms, Doctor."

Sure thing. You and your readers can check out a paper that is nearly ten years old.
"Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China" Chen et al. 2000.

"That does indeed sound pretty authoritative, especially with the use of esoteric terminology unfamiliar to most readers, but is pure speculation and nonsense."

OK, if the ground rules are that I am not allowed to use actual facts, published papers and big words to defend science then there REALLY is no point in having a discussion about the validity of the nonsense put forth in the Darwin's Dilemma film. Is it your position that only creationists should be allowed throw around these terms in a way to coat themselves with the false authority of "expertise" (I'm thinking of folks like David Berlinski here).

"The term "Cambrian explosion" was not coined by creationists."

Agreed. Scientists have a bad habit of trying to use inappropriate terminology in order to reach a broader audience. Cambrian Explosion, Snowball Earth, and Junk DNA are three prime examples of this.

Quoting from the abstract of the article that you cite regarding precambrian fossils:

"Putative [supposed or assumed] fossil embryos and larvae from the Precambrian phosphorite rocks of the Doushantuo Formation in Southwest China have been examined in thin section by bright field and polarized light microscopy. Although we CANNOT COMPLETEY EXCLUDE a nonbiological or nonmetazoan origin, we identified what APPEAR to be modern cnidarian developmental stages, including both anthozoan planula larvae and hydrozoan embryos. Most importantly, the sections contain a variety of small (≤200 μm) structures that GREATLY RESEMBLE gastrula stage embryos of modern bilaterian forms.[all emphasis mine]

Granted, your original comment only claimed "evidence" so I"ll concede that there is some evidence (weak though it be) for multicellular organisms in what are believed to be precambrian sediments. To call these polyps "complex" is arguable. I suppose complexity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, we can agree that it is a very large leap indeed to the complexity of trilobites, echinoderms, brachiopods, molluscs, chordates and the forty or more other phyla represented in the Cambrian sediments (more even than exist today!).

I thought your use of words like diploblastic and triploblastic was a bit gratuitous and used with the intent of intimidating those readers unfamiliar with the jargon. It would have been nice if you'd taken a moment to define your terms.

Dr. Theo,

Much of the idea for identifying the underlying causes of the Cambrian radiation come from this book :

J S Turner. 2007. The Tinkerer’s Accomplice. How Design Emerges from Life Itself.
Harvard University Press. 282 pp.
http://www.esf.edu/efb/turner/tinkerersaccompli...

It is a good read and I recommend it. Interestingly Dr. Turner has often been sympathetic to the Intelligent Design movement, even saying nice things about Dr. Meyer's new book:
http://www.stephencmeyer.org/quotes.php

While I disagree with Dr. Turner in his opinion of "Signature in the Cell" (and I have spelled out my reasons for this on previous posts to Dakota Voice) I think he presents an interesting idea regarding the development of true mesoderm and the subsequent radiation of animals in the Cambrian.

"I thought your use of words like diploblastic and triploblastic was a bit gratuitous and used with the intent of intimidating those readers unfamiliar with the jargon. It would have been nice if you'd taken a moment to define your terms."

Again, I was using terminology that was used by Dr. Turner and that I myself use in my introductory Biology course for non majors. Perhaps some readers were motivated to spend the time to look up those terms, but honestly I was writing for you and Brian Rutledge. I think that you both have a solid knowledge of animal biology/anatomy. I'm willing to bet we are the only three who are left following this thread.

This entire article is based on the premise that 'absense of evidence' is proof that something didn't happen. That is a canard. It is a false premise from.which to start. Let me give an example. Prior to 1957, man had not yet found any fauna fossils in the periods prior to the Cambrian. The creationists widely used the argument, the lack of evidence means it didn't happen argument, back then to then assert there were NO life forms at all, prior to the Cambrain. No evidence found yet, thus no life could have existed.

Well, in 1957, techniques had improved and fauna fossils were indeed found prior to the Cambrian. Charnia was the first. They were rather simple, but they were LIFE. The creationists had been railing that that there was NO life at all prior to the Cambrian, using the 'no evidence' premise. They, that premise and more importantly, that type of thought process was wrong. No evidence doesn't mean something didn't occur. They quickly dropped saying what they had been proposing-lack of evidence=life didn't occur in the Precambrian.

Now what this author is doing is saying we see complexed organisms in the Cambrian and simple organisms in the Precambrian, but since there are not visible fossils links between the two seen, then they can't be linearly related. It is the old 'lack of evidence argument' again that had been espoused by the creationists prior to 1957 from which they retreated when Precambrian fossils were found..

If any initial premise is invalid and you are basing an argument on that premise, then your conclusion more than likely will be wrong. It may not be, even if the initial premise is invalid, but it must be carefully scutinized. We can argue about what the evidence means, but in this case, it is the premise that 'lack of evidence means it just didn't happen' is invalid.

Besides, we are now finding complexed life forms, like the Ediacaran fauna in the Precambrian.

You said, "This entire article is based on the premise that 'absense of evidence' is proof that something didn't happen. That is a canard."

That's funny, very funny, because "absence of evidence" is more than enough for evolutionists to quite confidently and arrogantly claim God doesn't exist. (Even though there is considerable evidence).

Also interesting that, as you pointed out, evolutionists were wrong about the absence of life prior to the Cambrian. I wonder how many other things evolutionists so arrogantly insist are incontrovertably true...until they find out they are NOT true?

Well, one need only look at the headlines for a few weeks to get an idea of how many, because almost on a weekly basis evolutionists find out they were wrong about this, that, or the other. Then they scramble to come up with new theories which they then portray to the public as if they'd believed this all along.

Evolutionists are hilarious to watch as they try to cover their hind ends and pretend they aren't twisting themselves into logical pretzels.

Bob Your third paragraph stated that I said " evolutionists were wrong about the absense of life prior to the Cambrian" I don't believe I said that at all.I said the creationists were wrong about there being no life in the time before the Cambrian.

No matter, my argument is only about the PREMISE that " no evidence means somthing didn't happen".If some evolutionist claims that he/she KNOWS God doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, then their premise is faulty as well.

You're right, that was not correct to say that there was NO life in the theoretical Precambrian error; that shows the need for caution in debate when I've only had a handful of hours of sleep in the last few days.

Nevertheless, the original point about the Cambrian explosion was the sudden and unique explosion of complex organisms with no reasonable explanation. And there still isn't.

Unless, of course, one pins their hopes on the thought that someday many transitional fossils might show up to explain this sudden and massive expansion of life--even though none have turned up in any other context since Darwin established that as the pass/fail criteria for his obsolete theory.

One could simply look at the insurmountable problems of logic faced by evolutionist/materialist theory, examine the compelling evidence for an intelligent designer, and reach the reasonable conclusion that this "explosion" of organisms occurred during the Creation Week in Genesis chapter one.

But to do that, one would have to take the faith they have in the theory of evolution and put it in another theory--one that would require moral accountability, which many people find extremely distasteful, as well as humbling.

I'll take you at your word that you do not believe that lack of evidence means something didn't happen. However, you would be in the extreme minority of evolutionists for that to be the case. Virtually every one I have ever encountered or read speaks with absolute, unshakeable, definitive, unquestioning authority regarding the theory of evolution.

And it's more than a little funny...until one realizes how it leads others astray.

Conerning your next to last paragraph where you say that every person you have encountered or read speaks with absolute authority that evolution is a fact, does so because they truly believe the evidence is in, just as you truly believe it isn't. They feel it is as factual as the Germ Theory. But even Dawkins,Hitchens etc. adamantly state the evidence which they accept as fact and call this body of evidence 'evolution', does not prove in the least that their can't be a God. They know you can't prove a negative statement like 'their isn't a God'. That is why I maintain that the creationist can't claim to absolutely KNOW evolution didn't occur because of a lack of transitional forms.Lack of evidence in a murder doesn't PROVE the accused didn't do it. 100 % of the evolutionists that I talk to and read,including Dawkins, feel the evidence is in, but that same evidence is not proof there isn't a God

I don’t claim to know that evolution did not happen because of the absence of transitional forms. Transitional forms are a necessary element of evolution theory, one that evolutionists themselves thought up, and yet there are none, so evolutionists themselves are telling us that evolution did not happen because something they claim must have happened has no evidentiary support.

To use your murder analogy, if an investigator theorizes that a victim was shot to death, but there is no evidence of a shooting (no gun nearby, no bullet in the body or embedded in anything nearby, no powder burns on the body, etc.), then his theory has a real problem, doesn’t it? Only a fool would continue to insist the victim was shot in the absence of supporting evidence, doggedly refusing to consider other possible theories (e.g. that the victim was stabbed with a round object approximating the size of a bullet).

I realize some evolutionists, when backed into a corner, will sometimes claim they do not absolutely believe there is no God, et al. Yet their words, their tone, their demeanor, their actions, the whole enchilada says otherwise. Just as you will notice that textbooks, documentaries and such that talk about evolution theory rarely use the word “theory” and just as rarely use words such as “Scientists think…” or “It is possible that…” or “…could have happened x million years ago.” The language used always says, “This happened 3.6 million years ago” and “The birds are descended from”—no ambiguity, no uncertainty, no doubt.

The message to the casual listener/reader is clear: this is settled science, not to be questioned.

Which is pretty funny when there is not only no proof and little circumstantial evidence to support the claims, but when key hinge points of the theory are illogical and impossible according to the laws of science (you know, the same ones that refuse to consider God because he “can’t be measured by science.”)

Bob Let me quickly respond to your 'murder' analogy, because it serves a point. Bob Ellis is a neutral observer to a murder and watches a man come into a convenience store,steal the money and kill the clerk. If there is such a 'lack of evience' that police can't even find the killer or if they do and there still is a lack of evidence to convict him, then that lack of evidence has no bearing whatsoever on the truth that the man did kill the other.

Scientists do believe there is evidence for evolution and a lot of it, which is their right. You say there isn't, which is your right.Only the neutral observer over time knows for sure what happened.You say their reasoning is specious, because their evidence is faulty or deficient. They are then arguing from a false premise. The creationist frequently uses the premise, which I hear a lot, that there is no evidence for evolution, so therefore it didn't happen.

My question is why , when it is pointed out, that what they believe ( a lack of evidence means it didn't happen) is a faulty premise, that the creationist immediately points out what wrong with the scientists theory. It is sort of like saying.. well the scientists are using specious reasoning and starting from a false premise, so we will too. Maybe the scientists are starting from a false premise, but does that make common creationist claim that' there is no evidence, so it didn't happen' any more of a correct premise. Pointing out someone elses errors doesn't mean yours are right.

My wish would to be for both sides to stick to what they believe, quit pointing fingers and see where it falls. Like a football game, you can point out the other teams weakness all day long, but that doesn't have any bearing on the final score.Both sides should put there best players on the field and be instructed not to point fingers or taunt, but just play the game.

Speaking of games, don't forget to root for my home team- The Texas Christian University Horned Frogs as they march into the bowl games. Gotta love the underdogs, eh ?

And that's just one of MANY things that's an enigma for them. Of course, as with most such things, they have worked hard to find ways to explain it away -- ways that are both completely hypothetical and utterly inadequate.

Rejection of the Creator is the root of all kinds of futile, pseudo-intellectual wheel-spinning...

"And that's just one of MANY things that's an enigma for them."

Please substantiate this assertion.


" Of course, as with most such things, they have worked hard to find ways to explain it away -- ways that are both completely hypothetical and utterly inadequate."

Please substantiate this assertion.


"Rejection of the Creator is the root of all kinds of futile, pseudo-intellectual wheel-spinning..."

Please relate this unsubstantiated assertion to the subject of evolution.

(1) If you're not familiar with the almost endless list of things that evolutionism is supposed to explain, but doesn't, that's not my fault. For example, give me a scientifically solid, naturalistic explanation for the origin of life from non-life. Oh, but you can't, can you? And neither can anyone else!
(2) Apparently you're also not aware of how many of evolution's "facts" are mere unsubstantiated guesswork about what "must" have happened. For example, check out this random gem that supposedly serves as a conclusive refutation of "irreducible complexity": "It assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change.” Sounds impressive, but there is zero evidence that any such thing as it describes has ever taken place, plus it gets reduced to absolute nonsense once one understands at all how complex and interdependent the components of *any* life really are.
(3) People try to claim that evolutionism is not anti-God, but that totally disregards its real motivation -- a motivation that's easily seen operating in real life: to explain our existence while denying there is anything higher than us. The insistence upon excluding God from the study of his works has led to all kinds of speculation on top of speculation, and it gets in the way of real knowledge. If you're not able to recognize this trend -- again, that's not my fault.