The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution

URL:  https://boards.fool.com/point-is-that-there-are-multiple-explanations-for-34340348.aspx

Subject:  Re: Bacteria to Beethoven Date:  11/11/2019  6:02 PM
Author:  bdhinton Number:  27026 of 27149

Point is that there are multiple explanations for the Cambrian explosion. It is just a matter of gathering the evidence to decide which is the right one.

Sure, you can cite to numerous stories about the Cambrian explosion, but do they amount to explanations? "Oxygen" doesn't explain the new information needed to create new body plans, tissue types, etc. in any meaningful way. Its just more evolutionary yarn-spinning. You and Meyer are not using "explanation" to mean the same thing.

I think you've become accustomed to accepting such "explanations" uncritically. Again, Meyer's point is not can you wave your hand at something, but can you scientifically explain it. And he cites experts in the field to back up his point, at least in his writings. A short video is not the place for that, its a summary.

He ignores more recent inclusions to evolutionary theory of developmental biology, epigenesis, niche construction, not to mention the role of emergence in the creation of pattern and body forms.

Once again you are faulting him for participating in a summary video. He deals with all of those suggestions in his writings and dispenses with them by citing experts.

Your link is a classic example of the kind of dishonest argumentation used by the Discovery Institute. They make statements that are demonstrably not true (scientists have no explanation for the Cambrian explosion; novel body types emerged with no antecedents) and ignore new developments in evolutionary theory that they don't have an answer for.

Not at all true. They cite scientist in their technical writings and make careful arguments based on facts, and deal with any relevant new developments, despite it being really just more of the same.

Look, in the past you have admitted that scientists are "doubting Darwin". Your reply was to the effect, "Yeah, but they are not looking for some non-materialistic explanation as a replacement". I think your criticism is unjustified.
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us