Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Cambrian Discovery Discredits Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
Institute for Creation Research ^ | Jan. 30, 2013 | Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

Posted on 02/01/2013 11:10:25 AM PST by fishtank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last


1 posted on 02/01/2013 11:10:29 AM PST by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

The premise of this article is flawed. The conclusions are equally flawed.


2 posted on 02/01/2013 11:17:49 AM PST by Vladiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vladiator

These “scientists” found 400 examples. Since they did not also find any in the line preceding these examples, they are obviously part a big conspiracy to undermine God.

Isn’t that how it goes?

How dare they not discover fossils of every creature to have every lived half a billion years ago!!! amirite?


3 posted on 02/01/2013 11:23:05 AM PST by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
If evolution is true, life would have started out simple and then evolved in complexity over time.

The premise is false. We still have bacteria and other single-celled organisms. Evolution does not result in more complex organisms, it results in organisms that are better at surviving in their ecological niche, though the mechanism of less-capable organisms dying off. An organism that does well-enough in its niche will stay mostly unchanged.

4 posted on 02/01/2013 11:23:42 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

....and tomorrow, millions of scientists will go to work and add thousands of new data points that support a world and a universe older than 6,000 years....


5 posted on 02/01/2013 11:24:40 AM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Junk non-science in copious largesse.

The Pre-Cambrian resulted an an amazing variety of experimental multi-lateral body arrangements, whereas an intervening major extinction event/s resulted in the loss of the diversity and the survival of a preference fr the bilateral symmetry. The article is painfully false in its many assertions.


6 posted on 02/01/2013 11:25:01 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
We still have bacteria and other single-celled organisms.

If evolution were true, by now they'd look like this:


7 posted on 02/01/2013 11:29:31 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

The premise is accurate if you are discussing Darwinian evolution.
Also, the point is the lack of transitional forms supporting Darwinian e.


8 posted on 02/01/2013 11:44:43 AM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
The problem for paleontologists is that the supposedly 520 million year old creature looks exactly like its living counterparts, only up to 8 eight times larger.

When a lifeform becomes successful there is no need for it to evolve any more. Size can be accounted for by availability of food sources and numbers of the creatures competing for them.

Since God created them, I'm sure He will explain it all to us someday.

9 posted on 02/01/2013 11:50:16 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
Also, the point is the lack of transitional forms supporting Darwinian e.

There are a bazillion transitional forms supporting evolution. Look at the near-complete sequence we have for the evolution of horses, or the now much more complete sequence we have for whales (including whales with legs, whales with vestigal legs, to whales with internal leg remnants, etc.)

Of course the problem is:

Creationist: There's no transitional fossil between A and C!

Paleontologist: I just found B, which is transitional between A and C.

Creationist: Now there's no transitional fossil between A and B, OR B and C! Evolution is disproven!

10 posted on 02/01/2013 11:55:33 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vladiator
The premise of this article is flawed. The conclusions are equally flawed.

> Maybe, bur evolution is still a bunch of bullshit..,

11 posted on 02/01/2013 12:13:36 PM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Therefore (!) evolution; doesn’t always: proceed: gradually…? occasionally the – change / is swift? (:)
(poorly punctuated equilibrium)
12 posted on 02/01/2013 12:18:35 PM PST by Heartlander (Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that they are purposeless are interesting to study)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

the fossils found are NOT the only examples of extremely ancient fossils with extremely close cousins living today

“evolution” theory is not ONLY about some species having “evolved” from some earlier apparently different species, it also is about why some species (or some members of a species) change very little or not at all over long periods of time

if the premise of the article (its assumption of what evolution theory was saying) was true, then no ancient life form would have any extremely close relatives living today (all species “evolve” into something else and disappear), and no living life forms would have any extremely close relatives in ancient fossil records, at least not in any recognizable form (too “evolved” today to recognize the relationships) - but (1) that is not a premise of evolution theory and (2) neither of those conditions are true

now, on the lighter side

whera are all our great pranksters, for comments on the anatomy of the fossilized creature shown in the artistic rendering of it


13 posted on 02/01/2013 12:33:59 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Rider; PapaBear3625
If evolution is true, life would have started out simple and then evolved in complexity over time.

[PapaBear3625:] The premise is false. We still have bacteria and other single-celled organisms. Evolution does not result in more complex organisms, it results in organisms that are better at surviving in their ecological niche, though the mechanism of less-capable organisms dying off. An organism that does well-enough in its niche will stay mostly unchanged.

The premise is accurate if you are discussing Darwinian evolution.

What PapaBear3625 posted sounds thoroughly Darwinian to me. Do you have a quotation of Darwin where he says life always evolves toward greater complexity?

14 posted on 02/01/2013 1:27:43 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I appreciate a well defined anus.
15 posted on 02/01/2013 1:29:32 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Who/what was evolved enough during the Cambrian to stitch that zipper into the left side of that thing's body?

What is that zipper hiding? Do we really want to know?

Should we pull down its genes, and see what is hiding inside?

I want answers, Mister!

16 posted on 02/01/2013 7:02:48 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

______________________________________________________________

Why they move the outhouse next to the playground?

17 posted on 02/01/2013 8:55:59 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
As requested, the last paragraph from "Origin of the Species" :

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

18 posted on 02/02/2013 4:36:49 AM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
...it results in organisms that are better at surviving in their ecological niche, though the mechanism of less-capable organisms dying off.

Characterizing neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory in a way that restricts it to the particular mechanism of adaptation rather than, say, a change in gene frequencies is also a false premise.

Cordially,

19 posted on 02/02/2013 5:38:20 AM PST by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
When a lifeform becomes successful there is no need for it to evolve any more.

Objection. "Successful" and "no need" entail an implication of purpose and direction that is entirely absent from the biological definition of changes in the heritable characteristics of a population over time.

Size can be accounted for by availability of food sources and numbers of the creatures competing for them.

Diet is not evolution either.

Cordially,

20 posted on 02/02/2013 5:55:00 AM PST by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson