[CottShop]

Let’s just define whos being the apologist here coyote- As I said- you’re the pot calling the kettle black.

Us: The cambrian explosion shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional highly complex species.

You (and other evolution apologists): Well, evolution ‘could have happened but the for some reason species weren’t fossilized before the Cambrian episode” Drum roll please...... Apologist! Is there any evidence to back this statement up? Why No, no there isn’t- it’s a leap of blind faith!

Us: It is biologically impossible for a species to gain NEW non species specific organs and systems through a series of random mutations.

You (and other evolution apologists): Well, Evolution “could have done created new organs IF given enough time, and IF enough benificial mutations accumulated” Do you or anyone else offer ANY proof that accumulations of mutations can produce the biologically impossible? Nope- not an iota of evidence. The best you can do is throw out examples of microevolution and assert that Macroevolution- something that has NEVER been proven to occure, is one in the same when infact it clearly isn’t. When htis is repeatedly brought to your attention, all we get is foot stomping insistence that micro and macro are the same, and we get petty little insults thrown our way. Drum roll please.... Apologist!!!

Us: It is both mathematically impossible for mutations to accumulate enough that even one minor functioning new system could evolve in a species that simply doesn’t have hte code for the new system, and irreducible complexity shows that without all the pieces in place, species specific systems could not function.

You (and other evolution apologists): Behe is a big poopie head and pseudoscientist. New organs that species aren’t coded for could happen, all you have to do is click your heels and believe that time cures all impossiblities. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!

Us: Interdependent chemicals within the body, such as seen in the eye in abundance, simply would have no functions if the other dchemicals that they rely on were not present and performing organ specific functions. We ask how long a time it would take for all the components of the eye to assemble while each interdependent part and chemical waited around for everythign to assemble BY CHANCE

You (and other evolution apologists): Light sensitive skin patches prove the eye evolved. Anyone that says different and doesn’t believe that and questions the science is ignorant. Some of the chemicals and parts COULD HAVE had otehr functions, although admittedly, we have no proof that they did. Drum roll please.... Apologist!!!

Us: There is no direct link between the Cynodont, the favorite species of ear evolution advocates, that could have preceeded the Cynodont, yet amazingly, the chart used to show the suppsoed ear evolution contains species that we’re told preceeded the Cynodont, because the chart would simply break down when trying to show a supposed ear evolution if species were not shown preceeding the Cynodont. Furthermore, what is hidden from the public is the fact that all the intermediary species that showed a VERY clear reversal of suppsoed jaw bone migration. Furthermore, we’re not told that the species in the supposed ear system evolution chart were found continents apart, and in the wrong layers which were simply explained away by ‘environmental phenomena’ (It would appear that if you wish hard enough, and twist hte evidence, hide refuting evidneces, and neglect to mention certain facts, that the impossible could then become the possible)

You (and other evolution apologists): Arrrrgh- you know nothing about how eovlution happens. There are branches on the tree of life, and although not perfect, and although there are missing links and gaps, ear evolution happened- you’re just being difficult. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!

Us: The supposed early earth conditions were absolutely non conducive and hostile to any beginnings of life, and furthermore, it is bioilogically impossible for the cell membranes needed for life to function on even the lowest levels to take place. Lab experiments have ignored many impossible facts in an effort to produce idealized membranes that ignore the natural supposed progressions of biologically possible membranes. The idealized membranes produced by lab technicians could not have happened. Fatty acids could not have survived in the environment needed for the miraculous evolution of fatty acids from chemicals, let alone the furhter problems associated with membranes that couldn’t transport waste or induce movements and transportation of material. The abolute minimum requirements for self replicating organisms was simply biologically impossible given the environment and hostile elements that would have annihilated any begginings of life on the molecular level. Provided though, that these impossibilities were somehow miraculously overcome, we then come to the impossiblities of amino acids surviving in a hostile enivironment long enough for evolution to miraculously morph them into protiens while the evolution of DNA miraculously took place from nothing.

Concidering that molecules can’t reproduce without the help of numerous other molecules critical to multiplying,, and concidering that it’s hard enough hypothesising about just one molecule evolving from chemicals, how is it possible that one cell, comprised of thousands of atoms, somehow got hundreds of amino acids to align in the precise order, all doing their specifc part by providing a cell membrane, synthesizing fats, providing energy, synthesizing the building blocks of DNA the nucleotides, and synthesizing proteins, worked to produce a viable cell membrane conducive to life advancement up through the hostile ladder of evolution in an effort to, in the words of one fella, climb mount improbable?

You (and other evolution apologists): Abiogenisis isn’t a part of the study of evolution. Besides, that’s not my field, so I don’t have to comment on that- Phew, dodged that bullet. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!

Us: What about the problem of the same genes in different species performing the same functions despite differing in their molecules being alined differently? How bout the same molecules performing different functions? How about the hemoglobin of yeast being nearly identical to human hemoglobin? How about the fact that the divergences were predicted, and show, not a nice smooth gradual progression from original species, but a ragged, divergent, unexplained pattern that defies the proposed evoltuion of species to higher orders. Proposed homologous systems are infact, non-homologous genetic systems.

You (and other evolution apologists): Um, divergence isn’t my field of expertise- hang on, I’ll find an article that ridicules.... er I mean proposes yet another impossible workaround to those problems that defy the laws of biological reality and rely on the age old notion that “Time + Mutations soles everything”. Yuo have terrible spelling, and thusly, noone should concider any of the facts you present and instead discount you because you don’;t take the time to correct your typing mistakes!!! (Brilliant refutation of the facts) Drum roll [please.... Apologist!!!

“”Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques” by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.” - The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. “”

But But, Wait a minute... I thought evolution science was strict science- testing, falsifying, experimenting? But what does my eye spy? An admission that laws and experiments can’t be performed? They are unverifiable and unfalsifiable? Gee- whoda thunk that the evolution proponents engage in the very thing that they accuse ID’ers of doing? Pots calling Kettles balck once again!

“”We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31””

You’re right Coyote- I guess I didn’t know how evolution works. I assumed it sought truth. Apparently, to folks like you however, it works by wishing on a star, ignoring massive gaps, ignoring evidences that refute proposed hypotheses, and ignores biological impossibilities. Apparently the god called TIME is enough to overcome impossibilities and apparently placing dissimiliar species next to each other, and pointing out a few commonalities while ignoring the billions of genetic dissimilarities, is enough to convince those such as yourself who need for there to be no God in the equation. Apparently whining about opposing posts and calling the poster ignornat is enough to refute biological impossibilities. I guess I was in the dark about what ‘real science’ is all about - thanks for setting me straight- I was blind, but now I see. Onward evolution soldiers. So please, keep crying about how ID folk are ‘apologists’ - it’s quite funny.

[Coyoteman]

I have time for one response, so I'll take your first claim:

The cambrian explosion shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional highly complex species.

Your claim is false, as is so often the case.

The following information should help to clarify the actual facts of the matter. This is from Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak. In particular, this information is from Claim CC300. You see, there have been so many false claims made by creationists that they have been arranged and numbered, with detailed refutations.

I don't expect you to accept this, or much of anything else that science shows; I am posting this for the lurkers.

Response:

1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
   
   
2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).
   
   
3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
   
   Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
   
   And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.
   
   
4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.
   
   
5. There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:
   
   
   • The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
     
     
   • Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
     
     
   • The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
     
     
   • Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
     
     
   • Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
     
     
   • Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
     
     
   • Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
   
   
6. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).
   
   
7. Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

See the original article for the references.