I'll ask one more time, how did you come to be such an expert in paleontology?
Here is my answer.
If I tell you that I have a higher education than you, then I am making an argument from a place of authority. So, "I know more and so therefore you should listen to me". That is wrong. I would not do that. Some might, but I wouldn't.
If I tell you that I have no degree and yet I am able to debate a biologist at their own game and put major pinholes in his arguments, then he is either not a very good biologist, or his theories/beliefs are very weak.
There are still several phyla today that actually appeared in the Precambrian, not during the Cambrian explosion. So I don't see your response as being particularly meaningful.
Have the phyla changed into something else?
Even if some phyla appeared before the Cambrian, the explosion still represents a sudden surge of complex body plans with no clear evolutionary ancestors. How do you explain that?
If these phyla existed before the Cambrian and still exist today, doesn’t that suggest that they haven’t fundamentally changed? Wouldn’t evolution predict more transitions rather than stable body plans for hundreds of millions of years?
What is the fossil evidence for gradual evolution leading up to the Cambrian? If these phyla evolved step by step, where are the fossils showing that progression?
The Cambrian explosion spanned something like 40 million years, so I don't know where you get this idea that it was a sudden event.
Even if the Cambrian explosion spanned tens of millions of years, the key issue is the sudden appearance of diverse, fully-formed body plans, many of which seem to come out of nowhere in the fossil record. Evolution would predict gradual transitions leading up to this, but what we see looks more like a sudden diversification of already complex organisms
If evolution is correct, we should see more fossils from the Precambrian showing transitional forms that lead to the sudden diversity of the Cambrian period. Yet the fossil record lacks these, and what we do find seems to appear suddenly, fully formed.
Regardless of the timespan, it's still a dramatic burst in complexity. The sudden appearance of so many complex organisms with hard parts—such as exoskeletons and eyes—really stands out in the fossil record. How can we explain this dramatic surge in complexity within the time frame we see?
What mechanisms do you think would have caused such rapid and diverse changes in such a relatively short period of time? Wouldn't there need to be some external driving force for such a drastic change?
There is no difference here between microevolution and macro evolution, these are just made up imaginary terms by creationists.
There's no magical barrier between one species to another or even transitions that unfold between to genus via a species to species process.
Microevolution refers to small changes within a species, such as variation in colour or size, which we observe in nature. Macroevolution, however, refers to the evolution of new species or higher taxonomic groups. While both processes involve genetic changes, macroevolution implies significant changes that create entirely new forms of life. The distinction is important because while we see microevolution happening around us all the time, macroevolution, the kind of change that leads to new species or genera, hasn't been observed in the same way, particularly when it comes to the fossil record.
You’re saying there’s no real distinction, but if microevolution and macroevolution are the same, why don’t we observe large-scale changes happening in nature today? We see microevolution occurring all the time, but where are the examples of one species transforming into another species right in front of us? And why is it that when we look at the fossil record, we see sudden jumps in complexity, like the Cambrian explosion, rather than gradual, step-by-step transformations?
How did you figure that elephants are a kind?
You're right that there’s no specific kingdom called ‘Kind’ in modern biology. The term 'kind' comes from the Hebrew word 'min' in Genesis, referring to the categories of creatures created according to their kinds. It’s important to note that 'kind' isn’t a scientific classification like species or genus; it's a term used in a religious context. Creationists believe that the 'kinds' refer to groups of organisms that could interbreed or share a common ancestor, but it doesn’t map perfectly onto scientific categories like genus or species. In this sense, kind might refer to broader groups than what modern taxonomy identifies, such as what we might now call families or orders.
Here is my list of phyla, strictly based off of the fossil record, we see that several were present before the Cambrian explosion. So someone could say, well where did porifera of the Cambrian explosion come from? Well. The answer is they came from pre-cambrian porifera. It's really not that hard to understand.
This idea that all these animals just appeared out of nothing. Instantaneously is completely imaginary. When many of the animals we see today, were in fact around before the Cambridge explosion ever happened.
And then beyond that, this is just based on the fossil record which is continually expanding with Discovery, but if we look at genetics, the same details are affirmed, many of these groups of animals were already there.
Could you provide examples of clear transitional forms leading up to the explosion? Are there Precambrian fossils that show gradual development into the diverse, complex body plans we see in the Cambrian?"
Even if we accept that some phyla had ancestors before the Cambrian, we still don’t see clear evidence of gradual transitions. Instead, we see a sudden explosion of complexity. If life was gradually evolving, why don’t we see a clear fossil trail of intermediate forms leading up to the Cambrian animals?"
You mention genetics, but genetic dating methods assume mutation rates are consistent over millions of years. Isn’t this a circular argument? We infer these ages from the assumption of evolution, but we don’t have direct evidence of these creatures existing before the Cambrian in the fossil record. Isn’t that a problem?"
I’m not saying animals just ‘appeared out of nothing.’ The question is why the fossil record shows a rapid emergence of highly complex life forms without clear evolutionary precursors. If evolution is a slow, gradual process, why don’t we see a step-by-step buildup of complexity leading up to the Cambrian explosion?"
Have you studied those subjects, such as the evolution of hearts?
Not commenting if I have studied it. Answer the question. You should have the answer since you are a biologist. What came first, the blood, the heart or the blood vessels?
Microevolution is evolution within a species, like microorganisms evolving resistance to antibiotics. Macroevolution is evolution above that, like the evolution of new species.
Both have been directly observed. As Christians we should never deny reality.
I fully acknowledge that microevolution—small changes within a species, like antibiotic resistance or changes in beak size—has been observed. However, the real question is whether these small changes can accumulate to produce entirely new body plans, organs, or complex structures over time. Microevolution is not in dispute; what’s debated is whether it can lead to the large-scale changes required for macroevolution.
You say macroevolution has been directly observed. Could you give a specific example of one species evolving into an entirely new species with significantly different features or body structures?
Even if species adapt over time, where do we see clear, observable evidence of a species evolving into an entirely new type of organism with new structures or complex body plans? If macroevolution were as observable as microevolution, we should see more concrete examples of new, functional biological features emerging, not just minor adaptations.
All this is is just completely imaginary.
Are you aware that Michael behe, the person who created this idea of irreducible complexity, he himself acknowledges that people evolved from apes?
A lot of creationists aren't even aware of this. He just refers to it more as a intelligent design descent with modification from primitive apes as opposed to darwinian descent with modification from primitive apes but in principle it's essentially the same.
But then ultimately the whole irreducible complexity argument has always been one from incredulity, a logical fallacy.
It's this idea that I can't imagine how this would happen, therefore it couldn't. Meanwhile, 99% of other biologists have absolutely no problem with the process of evolution.
Personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
Didn't think you could answer it.
Evolution only occurs species to species, and as you've noted above
I did not say that. I said that Microevolution (small changes within a species) is observable, but macroevolution (one species to another) is assumed. So, your type of evolution cannot be proved.
That awkward moment when Michael Behe says that he believes we descended from primitive apes. That awkward detail that creationists never want to mention.
Doesn't worry me what he thinks. There are many people who think the silliest things. But one thing he did think of that makes sense is irreducible complexity.
It's all just the same old weak arguments that criminals like Kent hovind made-up decades ago.
It is starting to sound like you are running out of explanations
That evolution happens is a fact, how it happens is the theory. Just like how that germs cause diseases is a fact and how they do so is part of germ theory.
You say evolution is a fact, but what do you mean by ‘evolution’? If you mean that species change over time (microevolution), no one denies that. But if you mean that all life evolved from a single common ancestor through purely natural processes, that is not a ‘fact’—it is a theoretical interpretation of the evidence."
Your comparison to germ theory doesn’t quite work. We can directly observe germs causing disease in real-time under a microscope. But we cannot directly observe one kind of animal gradually turning into another over millions of years. Instead, evolutionists interpret fossils and genetic similarities as evidence of common ancestry. That’s an interpretation, not a directly observed fact."
Can you give me a direct, observable example of one kind of organism evolving into a completely different kind with new body structures? If macroevolution is a ‘fact’ like germ theory, we should see it happening today, right?
If you're not trying to speak as an authority in evolutionary biology, the point is moot.
If I do not have a high education (I am not saying I don't) and I am able to put holes in your understanding as a highly educated biologist, then your own opinion is moot. Stop trying to argue that other people's points do not count because you work in a bio lab. It is arrogant.
