reply to post by luciddream
Why is it so hard for religion folks to say "i don't know"...
My guess would be thru formation of Nuclec acids, Protein > RNA > DNA > Single Cell > Multi Cell > Complex organism.
That's because we know that the only answer that reflects reality is supernatural creation as per Genesis and a global flood disaster
Older textbooks proclaim that our phylum, the Chordata, did not appear until the subsequent Ordovician period, and that this later evolution must,
imply advanced status. But the Burgess Shale contains a chordate, the genus Pikaia, misidentified by Walcott as a polychaete annelid. However, Pikaia
remains in limbo, for no comprehensive anatomical description has yet been published. Chen and colleagues [Chen, J.-Y., et al., "A possible Early
Cambrian chordate," Nature, Vol. 377, 26 Oct 1995, pp.720-722] discovery and description of a beautifully preserved and unambiguously identified
chordate from the still earlier Chengjiang fauna now seals the fate of this misguided effort in asserting specialness for our ancestry. Chordates
arose in the Cambrian Explosion... The new Chengjiang chordate, Yunnanozoon lividum,... is so well preserved that its affinity within the Chordata can
also be specified. Chordates are divided into three major lines - the tunicates, the cephalochordates (represented today by Amphioxus and its
relatives), and the craniates (including all vertebrates). Yunnanozoon, with its metameric gonads and anteriorly extended notochord, belongs to the
cephalochordates. As the authors note, the fact that one major division is already differentiated by unique characters within the Cambrian Explosion
probably indicates that the other two divisions existed then as well - and that not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions,
arose within the Cambrian Explosion.... Other discoveries continue to highlight the speed and magnitude of the Cambrian Explosion. Bowring and
colleagues [Bowring, S.A., et al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," Science, Vol. 261, 3 September 1993, pp.1293-1298] recently
provided our first rigorous radiometric dates for the event -and `fast' turns out to be much faster than anyone ever thought.... The Cambrian
Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance
at that time. Books have been written on the potential meaning of this remarkable phenomenology for revised views of evolution, ecology and
development. Speculative and tendentious as much of this work may be (including my own), let us rejoice in the strangeness and elegant documentation
of the phenomenology itself. Our own phylum, as Yunnanozoon proves, forms part of this universal story. " (Gould, S.J., "Of it, not above it," Nature,
Vol. 377, 26 October, 1995, pp.681-682
Genesis would predict that full diversity of life form structures would be present at the bottom layer of the strata (sitting on top of the granite),
that these appeared suddenly and at the same time. The most respected and best known Palaeontologists, Stephen Jay Gould, writing in the most
prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, confirms this full diversity arising simultaneously and independently of on another at the very
The family trees that adorn our textbooks are based on inferences, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
- Stephen Jay Gould. 1997. "Return of Hopeful Monsters." Natural History 89(7):50
Evolutionary trees in the textbooks do not reflect actual reality
George Gaylord Simpson 'perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century' wrote:
It has been suggested that all animals are now specialized and that the generalized forms on which major evolutionary developments depend are
absent. In fact all animals have always been more or less specialized and a really generalized living form is merely a myth or an abstraction
The Meaning of Evolution p. 326
This means there is no such thing as a simple animal that became complicated, when we look at the fossil record everything is complicated
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination,
to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology,
vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin
was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting
together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record
will rightly reject my whole theory. (end of quote)
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of
evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views
have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve
our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.
The fossil record supports the Genesis creation account, holding the evolution account one has to believe in 'myths' and pay 'an exorbitant
price...never see[ing] the process [they] profess'.
When asking a scientist where the energy came from that created the simplest element hydrogen they will say we can’t explain that. When asked why
when hydrogen (matter) was formed out of this energy it did not create equal amounts of antimatter (which is what naturalistic science says would be
created) they are not able to explain why. When asked how a star (population III the simplest star containing virtually only hydrogen and helium)
formed, how did the gases condense down in an open space when such condensing would caused increased heat and thus pressure and thus force the gases
apart again (also as the gases condense a spin is created and the laws of angular momentum would prevent gases condensing down any further and fling
the gases away). When asked have you ever seen a star form to prove that it is possible naturalistically they will say that nobody has ever seen a
star form (but that have seen many stars exploded though). When asked have you ever seen any of these simplest stars (with just hydrogen and helium
and trace lithium in them) that are needed in the trillions upon trillions to explain all other stars (population 1 and 2) and planetary bodies in the
cosmos, where all the heavier elements came from (like the 100+ heavier elements), they will say we have never seen a population III star, all stars
are either population I or II containing heavier elements that can’t be explained by naturalistic/scientific laws how they got there already. We can
only see approx 300 supernova remnant which some report to occur with a frequency of about every 26 years roughly. This means we can only see evidence
of exploding stars going back roughly 7, 500 thousand years when supposedly the remnants of these supernovas should still be visible of over a million
years. These issues are things that are readily explained (and I would say only explained) by supernatural creation
- how a vacuum containing nothing can bring forth all the energy and matter in existence?
- where all the antimatter disappeared to?
- how a star formed able to overcome basic gas laws and angular momentum
- how population I and II stars formed without any population III stars present
- how a string of only left or right handed amino acids formed on 'primitive' Earth
- how these amino acids weren't destroyed by oxidization from oxygen in the atmosphere
- how all major life structures of both animals and plants are present in the first layer (the Cambrian layer), there independently of one another and
no intermediate transition between any of them?
- why there is no intermediate fossils in existence?
- how is it that the Earth's atmosphere has not reached its equilibrium level of producing the same amount of carbon 14 (from cosmic rays hitting
nitrogen) as is destroyed by the half-life effect of carbon 14 breakdown which Willard Libby said would only occur after about 30,000 years
- How is it that Arthur Chadwick's research reveals continent wide paleocurrent across the continents of the world for the Paleozoic and Mesozoic
strata regions, that they were water formed, that the water effect extends up still to the Cretaceous layer (the extinction level event that killed
the dinosaurs) where a whole lot of calcium carbonate soft-bodied sea creatures were formed (thus why it is aka the chalk layer), why the Creacetous
layer is the only universal layer across the whole world and must have formed in water but where the (flood) water was now low enough for these
soft-bodied creatures to form but not dissolve as they sunk down from the surface
Within the DNA there are mechanisms in place to allow variety and different gene expressions reflecting different environmental factors. This inbuilt
variation and adaptability is already there, not new information, it is not ‘microevolution’, not a slight change from a simple to slightly more
complex form, it is innate adaptability that is limited in its expression past a certain point. Naturalists extrapolate these micro variations out and
hope that by merely adding millions of years and much imagination that anything is possible. There are hard limits to the amount of environmental
adaptability the DNA allows, this is not evolution, but limited adaptation from existing gene expression. The reality in the ground shows no
macroevolution at all.
edit on 1-4-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)