You keep saying that, but evolution is easily falsifiable. It just has not been shown to be false, which should tell you something. Parts of the theory are modified and refined when they are shown to not be the best explanation of the data, but the basic framework remains.
2 Likes
First off, fossil evidence is just one branch of evidence. Genetics clearly connects different groups of species. If we had not found a single fossil we would still have more than enough evidence from genetics to support evolution.
With that said, recent discoveries have found tons of evidence, such as fossils of early chordates. The Cambrian itself is a treasure trove of evidence for evolution because it holds earliest ancestors of huge phyla, such as the chordate clade that humans, fish, birds, and reptiles all belong to. In the Cambrian, we have fossils of the ancestral group that gave rise to a huge group of animals, so how is that not massive evidence for evolution?
You can falsify evolution by finding numerous fossils that clearly violate a nested hierarchy. Here are 29 examples of potential falsifications for evolution:
2 Likes
Friend,
I think you’re getting caught on putting too much focus on the Cambrian Explosion. This is just one of many, many, many pieces of geologic and evolutionary history. Even if the Cambrian Explosion could be established as an anomaly, it would not undo everything else. And, in fact, we should interpret the Cambrian Explosion based on facts gleaned elsewhere. This is similar to Scripture–when a place in Scripture is unclear, we can use other places in Scripture that are clearer to help us understand that which is unclear.
In fact, it’s all about the Cambrian Explosion. If this represents creation, which on the balance of evidence certainly looks like it (if one has no confirmation bias) then we would have a whole new look at the fossil record.
Under the more accurate creationist assumptions, instead of wasting our time looking for Ediacaran or early Cambrian signs of rapid evolution, or trying to find missing transitionary fossils hoping to see some lineage back to microbes (which we certainly do not have), we should instead be looking for niche environments in which mammals and angiosperms exist.
What we observe today, is that when environments change, suitable fauna/flora move in from nearby niche environments and begin to dominate that changed environment. This is more frequently observed today to explain a changed eco-system, than rapid macro-evolution that involves de novo genes, or mutated genes. (sure changes to allele frequencies are observed, that process we should look at too) .
So when we look at widespread changed eco-systems during the geologic eras, instead of wasting our time looking for transitional fossils which hardly ever exist outside a clade, we should instead be looking for where those niche environments existed that harboured those organisms that then dominated in the changed eco-system in the new geologic era.
Why assume a hardly observed process, when we should instead be looking for a commonly observed process in the fossil record? Research under the assumption of creation will get better confirmation and more rapidly, because it involves already observed processes, rather than surmised processes. (we should begin the search for hidden fossil caches of extant species in niche environments, rather than hidden transitional fossils which still haven’t been found over 150 years since Darwin questioned the lack thereof)
You keep saying that, but evolution is easily falsifiable. It just has not been shown to be false, which should tell you something. Parts of the theory are modified and refined when they are shown to not be the best explanation of the data, but the basic framework remains.
There is no evidence that the thousands of species that appeared in the Cambrian explosion evolved from microbes. Nothing
So there is a theory, without evidence to support it. When I mention this to you guys, you say, well we have reasons why we have no evidence to support our theory.
This makes the theory of evolution unfalsifiable. Even though there is no evidence for it, you are quite satisfied with it, and impossible for me to disprove it because of the unfalisfiable explanations surrounding the lack of evidence.
I’ve been following this topic closely since the first post as I have a ID friend who is interested in the Cambrian Explosion. However, I have held off from posting because I am not a scientist. I did however want to pick you up on the above quote.
@Mindspawn, please tell me you are not trying to convince us that you have no confirmation bias, no presuppositions, not one prior assumption that might be colouring how you read the arguments and evidence in this thread? Nothing in your theology, hermeneutical approach, the doctrine of God, or doctrine of scripture either? No preconceived notions about evolution by natural selection?
The thing is, from where I am sat it looks a lot like you’ve already decided that Creation at the CE is correct, and that evolution is wrong. As a result it appears that you’ve read all of the posts in this thread through that lens. I may be wrong, but if we are all guilty of confirmation bias then you are too, my friend.
3 Likes
The difference is, I love a good point, well expressed. It challenges my mind, and I recognise the common sense, even if it contradicts my position. The truth is more important than my ego.
In this particular matter, there just are no fossils showing that the fossils of the Cambrian Explosion evolved from microbes. Even though the fossil record is lacking here and there it is possible to follow these species through subsequent eras, and see why they went extinct in changed conditions, or recognise some adaptation as they survive in slightly changed phenotype. So if the fossil record has so much sheer information since the Cambrian Explosion, even among soft-bodied organisms , why such a sheer lack of information before the Cambrian Explosion?
I’m guided by evidence and common sense, if not I would just have the standard YEC “flood did it all” viewpoint of the fossil record. Yet I accept the geologic column, due to continuously adjusting my view according to the evidence. Is bias possible? Yes, certainly, but then allow me to adjust my view more accurately by arguing from an evidence based position, rather than a philosophical based position as you have just done.
The irony is I believe in nested hierarchies, and evolutionary processes. The theory certainly is viable from a theoretical perspective as an explanation of origins of most species. I just believe in practice it does not explain the Cambrian Explosion.
And then subsequent to that Cambrian Explosion, I believe the more observable process when we have a change of eco-system, is that organisms from niche environments move into the new eco-system when conditions are favorable. So when we see a dramatic change of environment between the eras, it is a more viable process to search for missing niche environments, than to search for missing links/transitionals.
So even subsequent to the Cambrian Explosion (creation) we are assuming evolution too quickly, when the more observed process is that niche environments contain the organisms that later expand into new environments.
Look I do understand that evolutionists think there’s some pattern of evolving from marine, to swampy to land, because it seems that large sections of ocean floor became exposed/terrestrial due to extensive glaciation/ice caps forming.
If creation had occurred when the world was dry land, and instead it became marine, the order of so-called evolution would be reversed. We would have seen these terrestrial, then amphibuous creatures “adapting” to marine life. Does this point to evolution, the fact that oceans receded and shallow ocean beds became low-lying swampland? I believe it points to the fact that most of the places humans currently live and discover fossils were previously under the ocean, it points to an expanded landmass.
As for chordates, the more benthic of those early fossils (eg Cephalochordata, trilobites) would obviously have fossilised first, even under creationist expectations. A creationist view of a largely marine planet with benthic species fossilised first, better fits the fossil evidence of the Cambrian Explosion, than some assumed evolution from “early chordates”.
As for evolution being observed in genetics, we have these cases of matching genes in humans and sea urchins
Genetics is intelligent design, much like both a truck and a motorbike have similar workings even though looking entirely different. To say anything else is mere assumption. For example multiple studies focus on the rate of evolution by assuming a last common ancestor between any two species. This is all meaningless to a creationist, we just believe every organism has been beautifully designed with obvious overlaps of design when the same function is required. These dna sequence matches will obviously be stronger when there are multiple functions that overlap as in mammals with limbs, lungs, breeding, hearts etc etc.
You’ve been offered several reasons. I’m not going to rehash them here, since I know I cannot do as good a job of explaining to them to you as others have. 
Hmmm… not sure what to make of that. Nothing wrong with arguing from philosophically based positions. We all do it. Awkwardly, you’re doing it too. By claiming that to adjust your beliefs I must provide you evidence (rather than ‘philosophy’) you are arguing from an evidentialist philosophical position.
Further, an evidentialist persuasion coupled with a knowledge that no hard fossil evidence exists that conclusively refutes your position puts us all in a tricky situation. That is to say, you want fossil evidence that disproves your view of creation, no fossils have yet been found, you know this, but you won’t seem to accept anything else other than fossil evidence. Sorry to get philosophical again but that seems a little circular don’t you think?
Perhaps, I can illustrate this better with a (genuine) question. Please could you provide me with some testable, verifiable, lab reproducible evidence that God supernaturally created the organisms of the Cambrian Explosion full-formed and without transitional ancestor? I am sure there are plenty of people on this forum (myself included) who would gladly adjust their position on evolution if you could provide that. Do you see the problem now?
2 Likes
Perhaps, I can illustrate this better with a (genuine) question. Please could you provide me with some testable, verifiable, lab reproducible evidence that God supernaturally created the organisms of the Cambrian Explosion full-formed and without transitional ancestor? I am sure there are plenty of people on this forum (myself included) who would gladly adjust their position on evolution if you could provide that. Do you see the problem now?
I don’t want to prove God, nor creation. The time is not right for that, for we are in an age of faith. I just want to swing opinion a little , based on exposing the truth of the Cambrian explosion, that thousands of species did actually appear in the fossil record without fossil precursor. Despite evolutionists claiming to be evidence based, nothing in the fossil record shows that species with literally tens of thousands of genes evolved from microbes. The fossil record does not even hint at that.
I don’t actually want proof, because we are in the age of faith. If I had such proof, I would keep it between me and God, because God does not want to be proved in this age, if He did, He would just appear. Right? In the meantime there’s just enough evidence for a believer to be happily confident in a literal Genesis 1 without the need to take evolutionists too seriously when they claim “science proves evolution”. No it does not. The evidence does not even favor evolution as an explanation for the origin of species, at this stage it favors creation. I am not demanding proof , neither do I have proof of my position, all I saying is that how things stand, the evidence favors creation.
Oh, I do hate doing things like this. Please, allow me to engage in a little well-meaning foolishness.
Didn’t say you were, I was asking for evidence of God’s creative activity during the Cambrian Explosion.
Please provide testable, verifiable, lab reproducible evidence supporting your assumption.
Please provide testable, verifiable, lab reproducible evidence supporting your assumption that the believer can be happily confident with a literal Genesis 1.
On an aside, evolution does not deal with the origin of life on earth, only how that life changed over time. Perhaps, I have misunderstood you here?
Please provide testable, verifiable, lab reproducible evidence supporting your assumption that the evidence favours creation.
Now, having read my reply you might well think. “Well, Liam, you’re are being unreasonable I don’t have testable, verifiable, lab reproducible evidence supporting any of these things. I can provide other kinds of evidence, but not that kind because we haven’t found it yet.” But that is exactly the point others have made in their posts above. You want fossils and fossils only, they don’t have that evidence but you won’t accept the evidence that they do have either.
Now do you see the problem?
4 Likes
I have never asked for lab evidence of anything. That is your personal fixation. I just believe evolutionists have no advantage when it comes to actual observed fossil evidence. This idea that science favors evolution over creation has no factual basis, if anything the evidence of the fossil record favors creation. I have never claimed to prove creation, yet the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion certainly fits creation very well. Sure we can discuss genetics and any other evidence as well, I believe in evolutionary processes, they are observable, I have no problem with the theory but does it reflect reality, not significantly judging by the actual evidence.
Regarding origins, I’m open to adjusting the frame of reference for the discussion. The way I see this creationist/evolutionist debate is that abiogenesis aside, where do the millions of species come from? That is where I believe the debate is, I believe there was a creation event, followed by some minor adaptation. Evolutionists believe every observed species has somehow changed from an original LUCA. So in essence I regard the debate as concerning the origin of species, but am open to better terminology.
I never said you did. Lab evidence was for illustration purposes. I suggest you reread my posts and if you do not follow my reasoning perhaps you might like to ask some clarifying questions? Ad hominems will not sway any opinions to your side, quite the opposite they just shut down the dialogue.
Blessings.
2 Likes
I had to chuckle when I read “minor adaptation.” While it is true almost all of the animal phyla appeared during the Cambian the amount of adaptation since then is hugh. All animal life then was marine. No air breathers. No four legged land animals. No etc. etc. If you want to call that a “minor adaptation” then it was only a minor adaptation between single cell life forms and the Cambian.
Given the way you define Life I can understand your problem with the Cambian. But consider this. The Biblical definition of life is actually a definition of animal life.
Now here is a question for you. Was the life (in the biological sense) present before the Cambrian created by God? I believe God is the creator of all life starting even before the first single cell life form.
2 Likes
My friend,
I disagree. Focusing just on the Cambrian Explosion in terms of geologic and evolutionary history is looking at just one piece of evidence and determining everything based on that one piece of evidence. It’s like looking at a crime scene and deciding “who dun it” based entirely on the fact that the murderer used a knife. It’s not a good way to go about things. You need multiple lines of evidence to get the full picture. And that’s the issue. There’s more than one line of evidence. What about other fossil evidences? What about the genetic evidences? These things have been mentioned by many others.
Scientists shouldn’t make assumptions. They should examine what the evidence is, first. Everyone has presuppositions and bias, yes. But good scientists work diligently to keep those presuppositions and biases from influencing their data collection and conclusions.
We do have some. You can look them up. The fossil record is not complete, as has been mentioned before. This does not mean that evolutionary theory is untrue. And in fact, based on how fossilization takes place, we shouldn’t be entirely surprised that the fossil record isn’t as ideal as we would want.
Again, scientists should not make assumptions, my friend. That is not the proper way to do science.
3 Likes
Does it all boil down to the lack of fossils?
Since humans and sea urchins share a common ancestor, why wouldn’t they share genes?
So there were humans and dinosaurs around in the Cambrian?
That makes no sense. If terrestrial and marine fossils were around at the same time then they would fossilize at the same time.
It is the phylogenetic signal in genetic data that points to evolution, and that is something intelligent design has yet to explain.
2 Likes
You are ignoring the genetic evidence. That is the evidence that ties all life together.
You also seem to be championing a God of the Gaps argument. You have decided that after searching 0.00001% of the fossil record that many groups of Cambrian species had no ancestors prior to that period, and from that leap in logic you then proclaim that life had to be supernaturally created by a deity. I hope you can see why many see this is a weak argument.
On top of that, who is driving the field forward? That would be the scientists who lean towards evolution as the best explanation. They are out looking for the fossils, and are having success in finding them. How many people who believe as you do are actively searching out Pre-Cambrian fossils?
All vertebrates evolving from a simple chordate in the Cambrian is “minor adaptation”?
4 Likes
Once again you assume evolution without having evidence. You assume it before the Cambrian Explosion, and after the Cambrian Explosion.
Yet what we actually see is that the continents where we live and find fossils, used to be marine. Any environment which used to be marine (even if an island appears right now, over the next 20 years, slowly rising out of the ocean), will show first bottom feeder fossils, then fish, then mud fish and/or amphibians then terrestrial fauna/flora.
To see that sequence or something like that and assume evolution, rather than predominant environment, is a huge logic jump based on a well written book by Darwin looking at the beaks of finches.
Why do you assume evolution when you see a marine environment becoming terrestrial? On what scientific basis?
But there is evidence, my friend. People on this thread have given you scads.
Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin.
I, too, had the same position as you, brother. I thought that the Cambrian Explosion was a good example to use when opposing evolutionary theory. But, as I and others have mentioned, it’s just one line of evidence. There’s so much more, brother.
Take care of yourself, my friend. I wish you the best.
1 Like
That was not my point. You must have stopped reading after the first paragraph of my response. Please go back and read the whole reply and respond to the question I posed.
Personally I don’t assume evolution based on the fossil evidence. The genetic evidence is much stronger. Also the geologic evidence shows a location can go from marine to terrestrial and back and forth many times. It is not a single marine to terrestrial transition. Global flood theory or not.
1 Like