Fossil specimens, molecular evidence, and morphological similarities all provide factual support for evolutionary connections between phyla. For example, many of the originally puzzling Cambrian fossils prove to be intermediate between various modern animal phyla. DNA provides strong support for particular patterns of relationships between the phyla. For example, in the animals the bilaterians are well-supported as more closely related to each other; deuterostomes are more closely related to each other; etc. Many morphological characters also associate phyla, such as the patterns of early development, the distinctive jaws of the Gnathifera, the body chambers of deuterostomes, etc. Beware of anti-evolutionary propaganda. âDarwinistâ and âDarwinismâ are not particularly meaningful terms; they are used largely as pejoratives (not just by anti-evolutionists) and so do not help much in conveying your meaning. Not all evolutionary claims are sound, but arguments against them need to be well-developed.
Ciara,
When speaking with a Christian who rejects evolution, I will often mention that the first two chapters of Genesis have two very different creation stories. They have different orders and methods of creation.
This is evidence directly from the Bible that we are not to read the early chapters of Genesis as literal history, as the two creation stories are literally incompatible as actual history.
I will also point out Psalms 18/2 Samuel 22 as an example of a telling of historical events in a way that is valuable but not literal history. These passage tell the story of God protecting David from Saul; they are lovely and true but not literal history. In Davidâs case, we have the literal history and the flowing prose of hyperbole.
No, God did not fly down on a cherub hurling lightning with smoke pouring from his nostrils, but God did protect David.
How are they misleading?
Presenting theortical branches - based on an assumption (universal common ancestry) - as factual fossil evidence certainly qualifies as âmisleadingâ.
The branches are based on evidence, not assumption. Part of that evidence is features shared by early fossils, just as it is based on the features found in modern species and the DNA of modern species. Again, the nested hierarchy is an observation, not an assumption.
Nested hierarchies exist only within phyla. There is no fossil evidence of a nested hierarchy that connects all phyla.
Your Darwinist model of universal common ancestry seems to rely on fossil evidence that is hoped for and theorized, but is not known to exist.
You donât need fossils to construct nested hierarchies. You can use the physical characteristics of living species and their DNA.
You would be wrong. The biggest piece of evidence is DNA and how that DNA is shared by all living species.
Sorry to be a party-popper, but I prefer empirical evidence to wishful thinking built on an assumption built on a theory.
When the fossil evidence that demonstrates universal common descent is discovered, wake me up. Meanwhile, Iâll remained unconvinced that UCD is a valid theory.
Sequencing DNA is an empirical observation.
We donât expect to find fossils of tiny single celled organisms. Why would you expect to find such a fossil?
We have found some, but they are incredibly rare, hence the point still stands.
To complicate things more, the same people who demand fossils for the last universal common ancestor will probably not accept the hominid transitional fossils as evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps.
Sequencing DNA of organisms that lived millions of years ago is not an empirical observation, so all youâve got and all youâll ever have is a theory.
So you admit Darwinism is built on fossil evidence that doesnât exist.
My understanding is that the Ediacaran biota became extinct, in which case, there is no fossil evidence of evolutionary links between the âsmall, shelly faunaâ and the animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion.
Sequencing the DNA of living organisms is empirical evidence. That is what we are using to test the theory of universal common descent.
No. I am saying just the opposite. I am saying that we can test the theory of evolution and universal common descent without any fossils. The theory stands on its own without citing a single fossil.
The small, shelly fauna is early Cambrian, not Ediacaran, and has numerous evolutionary links to later organisms, including a number of transitional forms.
There are some weird Ediacaran-like fossils in the Cambrian, and some of the Ediacaran fossils show similarities to later groups (e.g., Kimberella definitely seems to connect with Lophotrochozoa, and possibly specifically with mollusks; several taxa have evidence of bilaterian affinities). The preservation of Ediacaran fossils often does not give the precise clues needed to pin down their affinities. Also, the common ancestor of many groups of phyla would be a rather generic soft worm, not readily distinguished without soft-part features. For example, the xenoturbellids and acoels are rather featureless flat little worms.
The post-small shelly Cambrian faunas also contain many forms that are intermediate between modern phyla.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.