[asking]

Precambrian fossils have been know since the 1880s and earlier. There were certainly multicellular animals before the Cambrian explosion, but they lack hard skeletons and don't fossilize well. It's as if all organisms were single cells or marine slugs with no hard parts. There are fewer fossils from that period, but they definitely exist. Just not in as great numbers as those that come later. And of course since the Earth's crust erodes all the time, there are far, far more rocks that are 200 million years old than are 2000 million years old.

The Cambrian represents a major diversification and the appearance of both inside skeletons like ours and outside skeletons like those of insects and lobsters. Diversification is a common theme in Evolutionary biology. The diversification of marsupials in Australia is a smaller but equally interesting example. Diversification is where species come from, so it's not at odds with macroevolution, but, on the contrary, the very essence of it.

Fossils are not a red herring. They are the backbone (no pun intended) of all that we know of the history of life on Earth. All that molecular biology has done is to provide confirmation for 90% of what we already knew and minor adjustments to the other 10%. (I'm using these numbers only approximately.)

Molecular biology was like an independent witness coming into a criminal trial and confirming the statements of four earlier witnesses--first paleontology, then comparative anatomy of living species, then comparative embryology, and not least, biogeography--the distribution of both living organisms and extinct ones. All these earlier witnesses told the same basic story, although from different perspectives. Molecular biology confirmed their stories.

The fact of evolution comes from the fossil record. HOW evolution happened, the details of mechanism, are better sorted out by looking at genetics on the one hand and ecology--the furnace of selection--on the other.

[Tj3]

The fact of evolution comes from the fossil record.

Really? FACT means that you are saying that evolution has been proven. Show us the proof.

[Tj3]

You've been asked by asking and by me to provide the names of "leading scientists" (the phrase is one you've used repeatedly) who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute and who reject macroevolution. You've yet to do so, so I am guessing you don't know of any. If I'm mistaken and you do, by all means bring them forward.

I already answered that. And maybe you did not get the memo but the "20 questions" game is over.

[asking]

I notice that you only accept what those scientists say that you agree with, and reject those who disagree with you. I listen to all scientific evidence no matter where it comes from and I examine it objectively.

Others can decide which produces the most objective conclusion.

Tj, you keep saying that we reject your experts, but despite our having asked repeatedly for you to name a biologist other than Behe who agrees with you, you haven't named anyone whose views you've considered. Frances Collins? W.D. Hamilton? Name some names. Which biology experts are you alluding to?

[Akoue]

I already answered that. And maybe you did not get the memo but the "20 questions" game is over.

At #356 I told you that if you continue to dissemble

I am going to conclude that it is because you have made claims which you are aware you are unable to support.

I have now concluded. If you had anything to offer besides maneuvers you'd have provided it by now.

I think that spells QED folks.

[Tj3]

Tj, you keep saying that we reject your experts, but despite our having asked repeatedly for you to name a biologist other than Behe who agrees with you, you haven't named anyone whose views you've considered. Frances Collins? W.D. Hamilton? Name some names. Which biology experts are you alluding to?

Once again, the game is over. I already said that since both you and Akoue have already indicated that you reject anyone who disagrees with you, and that was before I mentioned any names. Why then should I waste my time when I see the pre-judgment based upon their views? You said that ALL biologists agree. Well, it is an absolute facts that they don't - so the only thing that I can take from that is that you deny that any biologists are real biologists if they disagree with your position. How is that science? Why should I then even waste my time providing names? You are just wasting my time asking if that is your approach. I do my research into the topic and I know who scientists on various sides of the issue because I am interested in what science has to say whether the specific scientists agree with me or not. I would strongly recommend that approach to anyone who wants to study any topic.

Show me that you have interest in a serious discussion, show me that you are open to scientific evidence which disagrees with you, show me that you respect scientists who disagree with you - all of those will enhance your credibility as a person with a serious and objective interest in the topic. Those things will give me more incentive to respond to requests like that.

[Tj3]

I have now concluded. If you had anything to offer besides maneuvers you'd have provided it by now.

I feel the same about your argument. Indeed, the question that I started with - where is the proof for evolution remains a blank.

'nuff said.

[Akoue]

Show me that you have interest in a serious discussion, show me that you are open to scientific evidence which disagrees with you, show me that you respect scientists who disagree with you - all of those will enhance your credibility as a person with a serious and objective interest in the topic. Those things will give me more incentive to respond to requests like that.

Show you? We aren't here to kiss your ring, Tom.

We've asked you to provide some names and you either can't or won't. Pony up or stop complaining.

[asking]

Really? FACT means that you are saying that evolution has been proven. Show us the proof.

The fossil record.

Unless you can provide an alternative explanation for the whole of the fossil record, then evolution is certainly as firmly established as any fact you can think of. I have yet to see a coherent big-picture explanation for the entire fossil record that is consistent with special creation and, in particular, young earth creationism. Evolution explains the fossil record perfectly. Nothing else is known to do so. To be blunt, there is no other theory. It's like asking, What is the alternative to Newton's laws of gravity? There aren't any.

Science isn't always so cut and dried. For example, there is an alternate theory to the self/nonself theory of immunology. The alternate theory makes sense (to me) and some people think the older theory may be wrong.

There is No Alternate Explanation for the fossil record and all the other biological evidence that supports evolution. That's why, if you, Tom, could present an alternate theory that actually explained the fossil record, comparative morphology, comparative embryology, and biogeography, it would be so interesting and amazing. It is no shame that you don't have one. Any biologist who had even an inkling of such a theory would have been in all the major science magazines (and I'd have noticed). Science doesn't demand ten theories--just one that works.

[Tj3]

The fossil record.

No. Even Darwin said that was the weakest argument and it is no stronger today. You have not even addressed the one question that I raised, which is pretty direct to the issue.

Unless you can provide an alternative explanation for the whole of the fossil record

Why should I when a critical point - how long of a timeframe do the periods represent - is something that you cannot address? And this is only one example of a more common issue in the fossil record.

The other issue, the order of the layers - your answer was essentially to interpret them so that they align with the theory of evolution. That does not address that issue either.

So it appears to me that you do not have an explanation for the fossil record. And I only raised two issues of the thousands that could be raised. So no, the fossil record is not proof,

[Akoue]

Tom, thanks for the reddie. You should read the site rules sometime.

Guess you're just lashing out now.

[Tj3]

Show you? We aren't here to kiss your ring, Tom.

We've asked you to provide some names and you either can't or won't. Pony up or stop complaining.

Nor I yours. Get that straight once and for all.

I responded. If you don't like the response, then too bad. Deal with it. I am not here to take orders from you.

[Tj3]

Tom, thanks for the reddie. You should read the site rules sometime.

Guess you're just lashing out now.

See why I asked if anyone was interested in a serious discussion?

[arcura]

asking.
Again I must agree with you because YOU have been making sense and answering questions very well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[asking]

Thanks, Fred.
You are very kind.

[arcura]

asking,
You're welcome.
Fred

[Curlyben]

>Thread Closed<

This has gone the way of oh so many other discussions.