The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution


Subject:  Re: Bacteria to Beethoven Date:  11/12/2019  12:24 AM
Author:  btresist Number:  27027 of 27149

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.

Of course they are explanations. What you call "stories" are testable hypotheses, which is how the scientific process works. One hypothesis is that the precursors for the many Cambrian body forms existed before the Cambrian explosion. There is growing fossil evidence that this is the case. This means that much of what you call "new information" already existed prior to the Cambrian explosion. They are just hard to find in the fossil record because they were present at low abundance prior to the explosion.

Another hypothesis is based on the observation that oxygen levels increased coincident with the Cambrian explosion. A 2019 paper further demonstrates that large changes in the diversity of body forms as seen in the fossil record correlates with significant changes in oxygen levels. These changes created environmental stresses that selected for different preexisting body forms, which thereby increased in abundance making it more likely that they are found as fossils. In other words, the changes in oxygen levels created a more complex environment that in turn selected for greater biological diversity.

That is a lot more detailed and testable explanation than your alternative of an unexplained intelligence taking 10 million years to create a plethora of primitive body forms by an unknown process for unknown reasons.

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.

So you claim. But you've made many posts on this board have yet to demonstrate this to be the case.

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".

This is simply untrue. I've stated and provided examples of evolutionary theory expanding beyond the simplistic notions described by the Discovery Institute. I've also recall arguing that evolutionary theory says nothing for or against the existence of God. But I've always firmly believed that the stuff the Discovery Institute puts out is mostly religion pretending to be science and has no place in a science curriculum.
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us