Here’s more, from the literature, on those 760 million year old fossil sponges

Pet said: "I’m certainly not an expert, but this discovery seems to push the fossil evidence for the divergence back quite a ways." I'm not an expert either, but this is the constant pattern that we find. Everything keeps getting pushed back. At what point does this become a problem for evolutionists? I mean, it seems the available time for the first life to evolve is getting smaller and smaller. It seems that the available time for animal life to evolve from that point is getting shorter and shorter. Time is the great friend of evolution we are told. Time makes the impossible possible it has been said. The idea of vast amounts of time has been used by evolutionists to try and get people to swallow the evolutionary story. But what do we do when the available amount of time keeps shrinking? Do we just ramp up the level of our faith and keep on believing or is there a point where we really need to rethink what is possible and what is not possible? Time is becoming less and less a friend of evolutionists, but it is a problem that most people don't realize. Many people still think there are vast amounts of time available for evolution to work its magic. Embarrassingly, time has become an enemy to the whale evolutionary story and it is fast coming to a head in other areas as well. Of course, no one knows how soon the first life evolved, but what is thought to be the earliest possible time that could have happened? I'm sure someone here must have an idea of that. Best case scenario which almost certainly could not have occurred would be what? Just curious. tjguy

It appears that this paper may not have been "peer-reviewed", and at least one scientist thinks its conclusions are wrong. PaV

Petrushka: I imagine (infer) that an undiscovered planet is perturbing the orbits of known planets. I search for the unknown planet. You seem to suggest that Darwinism is just like gravity. But gravity works a little differently.

In 1846, the planet Neptune was discovered after its existence was predicted because of discrepancies between calculations and data for the planet Uranus.

There were facts in hand that led scientists to propose this scenario. They didn't "imagine" it; they deduced it. And they discovered they were correct. Darwin "imagined" that there were just as many extant forms of life prior to the Cambrian as those that followed the Cambrian, except that they were less diversified. It's right there in the OofS. So, unlike gravity, where a prediction based on logical deductions was verified, Darwinian imaginations, the fruit of inductive logic, and inductive logic alone, has not been verified. Further, what phyla, other than Chordata, exhibits dramatic changes in morphology over time? I'm no expert, but I'm fairly confident that other than insects, we don't see many. And, again, where are the intermediates to Archeopteryx? If you come up with some single "intermediate", this is hardly persuasive evidence of the Darwinian model. PaV

You might better have asked why there are still bacteria. Even more interesting, why are bacteria the dominant life forms in numbers and in biomass.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is this not a question better posed to evolutionists? If evolution is all about change through random changes to DNA sequence, which then supposedly leads to macroevolution, why indeed do we still have bacteria? Design explains it quite easily. Biological entities are "closed systems". They are restricted by their body plan to allow only a limited amount of mutation before it conflicts with the overarching body plan. Hence bacteria will always remain bacteria, and so to mammals remain mammals. How does neo-Darwinism explain such extensive stasis? You might argue that bacteria have found their "niche" within the ecosystem; that the product of natural selection is solely to survive -- but that begs the question as to why we have such a diverse, colourful and intricate array of life on the planet. If the mutation / selection mechanism selects for survival, then what better method for survival than prokaryotic fission. And why would this method seemingly continually select across the entire spectrum of mammals for a lifespan of 100 years or less if survival is the end-product. And if you argue that selecting for a prolonged life would put a strain on resources; well that is besides the point, as mutation / selection cannot "see" beyond what works well for that organism in the moment. Stu7

Petrushka, your response is lackadaisical to put it mildly. You cannot simply declare that functional information, proteins/genes, may someday be generated by neo-Darwinian processes and presuppose that we will take your word on it (especially your word on it!). It is pie in the sky 'promissory materialism' that you advocate, and it is this unrestrained imaginary fantasy of yours, and other neo-Darwinists, that is always off in the future, over the rainbow, somewhere. Whereas here in the real world, from the best scientific evidence we have right now, we already have evidence which falsifies neo-Darwinism!!! But what is completely ludicrous in your response is that you try to claim that Thornton's work supports your completely unsubstantiated view that microbes are not really 'devolving' in their 'beneficial' adaptations, as I hold, and are thus not severely constrained in the amount of 'upward evolvability', as all evidence indicates. Yet, (in the real world) Thornton's own work testifies that you are living in a fantasy land and could care less about all the consistent experimental results that, without fail, go against your dogmatic atheistic beliefs!!! Here is Dr. Behe's analysis of Thornton's exceedingly meager results, which you have placed all your faith in as to demonstrating the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution for all the rest of us to see. Drum roll please,,,

A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Michael Behe January 11, 2012 Excerpt: What's more, unlike Lenski's results, the mutated system of Thornton and colleagues is not even advantageous; it is neutral, according to the authors. Perhaps sensing the disappointment for Darwinism in the results, the title of the paper and news reports emphasize that the "complexity" of the system has increased. But increased complexity by itself is no help to life -- rather, life requires functional complexity. One can say, if one wishes, that a congenitally blind man teaming up with a congenitally legless man to safely move around the environment is an increase in "complexity" over a sighted, ambulatory person. But it certainly is no improvement, nor does it give the slightest clue how vision and locomotion arose. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/a_blind_man_car055021.html

Thus Pet, it seems, as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned, evidence that you yourself cite, that you are no better than the mad Drunkard in the street, who has delusions of grandeur,,, of being ruler of the world, but in reality the mad Drunkard is but a mad Drunkard and must beg for others for scraps of charity so that he can even afford his next drink. notes:

Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068

bornagain77

And yet Beheld is simply wrong. Genomes are not constrained as tightly as your puzzle, and multi-step inventions do occur. It will be fun to watch as more young researchers take Thornton's approach. I've been following this debate since 1956, and it's been entertaining watching the goalposts move. Petrushka

Petrushka imagines, in mythical molecular reductionism fashion, that;

Usefulness of an allele is defined by differential reproductive success.

Yet the real world evidence states:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

i.e.,,, that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit', as with antibiotic bacteria:

Antibiotic resistance is ancient - September 2011 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110922 List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Yet when we look for mutations in a 'non-stressed' environment, i.e. in a 'normal environment' that does not have antagonistic factors like antibiotics, mutations that may 'build upon one another', build upon one another in a 'neo-Darwinian quest' to build useful functional information, we find that,,,

Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives - November 2010 Excerpt:,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html

so even though, in a stressed environment, neo-Darwinists may imagine that they have found useful mutations, the fact is that these supposed useful mutations of neo-Darwinists are nothing of the sort when considering the functional information of the cell. i.e. The mutations refuse to 'cooperate with each other' in the endeavor of building useful, novel, genes and proteins:

Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 Response from Ralph Seelke to David Hillis Regarding Testimony on Bacterial Evolution Before Texas State Board of Education, January 21, 2009 Excerpt: He has done excellent work showing the capabilities of evolution when it can take one step at a time. I have used a different approach to show the difficulties that evolution encounters when it must take two steps at a time. So while similar, our work has important differences, and Dr. Bull’s research has not contradicted or refuted my own. http://www.discovery.org/a/9951 Mutations : when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

One of the primary reasons why random mutations (or even 'genetically engineered mutations') cannot build functional information is as follows:

Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism, or even Theistic Evolutionists is this: To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study, and further studies, has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle: If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford. S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S Which is translated ; THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS. This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation. This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order! As to Theistic Evolutionists, who believe God guides evolution incrementally, all I ask you to consider is do you think that it would be easier for God to incrementally change the polyfunctional genome of a organism, maintaining functionality all the time, in a bottom up manner or do you think it would be easier for Him to design each kind of organism in a top down manner? The evidence clearly indicates 'top-down' design. The Complexity of Gene Expression, Protein Interaction, and Cell Differentiation - Jill Adams, Ph.D. - 2008 Excerpt: it seems that a single protein can have dozens, if not hundreds, of different interactions,,, In a commentary that accompanied Stumpf's article, Luis Nunes Amaral (2008) wrote, "These numbers provide a sobering view of where we stand in our cataloging of the human interactome. At present, we have identified 0.3% of all estimated interactions among human proteins. We are indeed at the dawn of systems biology." http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-complexity-of-gene-expression-protein-interaction-34575 Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes." “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin’s gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless.” R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Werner Gitt, “In the Beginning was Information”, 1997, p. 106. (Dr. Gitt was the Director at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology) His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published.

Verse and Music:

Psalm 100:3 Know that the LORD Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk

bornagain77

Environmental conditions? We have soft bodied critters today. How do they survive without protection?

You miss the point somewhat. Animals that do employ a hard outer covering could not have evolved sans this protection. Naturally animals that do not use such a tool, and have no use for it and can survive without the protection.

Chen: "Animals such as brachiopods and most echinoderms and mollusks cannot exist without a mineralized skeleton. Arthropods bear jointed appendages and likewise require a hard, organic or mineralized outer covering. Therefore the existence of these organisms in the distant past should be recorded either by fossil tracks and trails or remains of skeletons. The observation that such fossils are absent in Precambrian strata proves that these phyla arose in the Cambrian.

Stu7

Usefulness of an allele is defined by differential reproductive success. Petrushka

Petrushka, so what you are really saying is that you don't care that the mutations (new alleles) are detrimental and don't build functional information, novel genes or proteins, but all you care about is that you can still believe in your unrestrained imagination no matter what equivocation and deception you have to use!!! Well Petrushka, that's up to you, but I certainly ain't going to live in your self made fantasy land of nihilistic atheism!!! bornagain77

New alleles would be what is meant by new information. As opposed to recombinations of existing alleles. Which would still fit the ordinary definition of evolution. Petrushka

Petrushka, new alleles??? What are you talking about???,, sure detrimental mutations arise all the time (new alleles), in fact each human has approximately 60 to 100 new detrimental mutations (new alleles) every time a new human is born:

Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009 Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome. (Of note: this number is derived after "compensatory mutations") http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html This more recent study found a slightly lower figure: We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us - June 2011 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm

The problem for you Petrushka, is not finding detrimental mutations (new alleles), we are literally swimming in detrimental mutations, the problems for you is to find beneficial mutations that will work together in coordinated fashion so as to bring about new genes and proteins i.e. new genetic information!

Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

bornagain77

So are you willing to state, at peril of violating the commandment against lying, that there are no new alleles in dogs that are not found in wolves? Petrushka

Petrushka, I stated, as a 'fact', that the entire spectrum of dogs has less genetic diversity than wolves! I even cited a paper to that effect, that showed the 'sub-speciation' of dogs from wolves was due to loss of genetic information. That's pretty good evidence from where I sit. It seems to me that the burden is clearly on you to show the origination of your imagined novel genetic information (ORFan genes), in teacup poodles, to prove what imagine to be true is actually true instead of just imagining that new genetic information has arisen. i.e. You imagine that novel genes/proteins can arise by random material processes in '50 generations'??? Good, since we are dealing with science and not with your unrestrained imagination, PROVE IT!!!

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html Signature In The Cell - Review Excerpt: Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/ "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")

bornagain77

You might better have asked why there are still bacteria. Even more interesting, why are bacteria the dominant life forms in numbers and in biomass. I've seen it seriously suggested that, by weight, there are more bacteria and viruses in the human body than human cells. Petrushka

What specifically is strange? What do you think evolution is? Petrushka

But you haven't addressed my point. Tremendous variation in physical form can occur with very few new genes. The difference is in regulation. In fact there are very few new genes in the entire vertebrate line. Mutations in regulatory genes are much less likely to be fatal than those in protein coding genes. So evolution in body shape can occur much more rapidly. But I'm sure you wouldn't make a statement that isn't true and that you know to be a fact. If I ask, you could name the genes and the alleles involved in transforming a wolf into a teacup poodle. Since you stated it as a fact, I expect that you can do this. Petrushka

Robert, 'Primitive' in biology doesn't mean 'inferior':

primitive 2 b : closely approximating an early ancestral type : little evolved

champignon

This YEC suggests that the whole concept that evolution is somewhat balanced on is that SPONGES etc are more primitive then cats. A creator would not make inferior or superior biological entities and so its to be proven a sponge is more primitive then anything else. Whats primitive about these fantastic things! No reason to see primitive to better by these creatures. Thats species-ism. Robert Byers

Petrushka you state:

It takes roughly 50 generations to turn a population of foxes into dog-like household pets.

Yet contrary to your imagination that thinks this is a stunning example of Darwinian evolution the simple 'real world' fact is that this is accomplished by the culling of information that was already preexistent in the foxes.

,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED No Beneficial Mutations - Not By Chance - Evolution: Theory In Crisis - Lee Spetner - Michael Denton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816 Evolution? - The Deception Of Unlimited Variation - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113898/

bornagain77

Pet asks:

What can happen in 200,000 generations?

Not nearly as much as your unrestrained imagination imagines: Let's just see what we can find after 50,000 generations of Lenski's e-coli, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution???

Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011 Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html

Now that just can’t be right Petrushka!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?! Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing!!!

Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

Now something is going terribly wrong here Petrushka!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now almighty neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror at the awesome power of unguided Darwinian processes (BWU HA HA HA,,,, evil laugh,,, BWU HA HA HA)!!!

A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html

Now, there is something terribly wrong here Petrushka! We can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power of neo-Darwinism whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!! Further notes:

Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 - Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ Tell you what Pet, instead of believing in unsubstantiated imagination, which repeatedly leads us down fruitless blind alleys, why don't we purpose it in our hearts to worship the One who really did speak reality into being and who really did create all life on the Earth? Seems to be a much more worthwhile endeavor to me! :)

Music and Verse

Michael W. Smith - Agnus Dei http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPBmFwBSGb0 Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

bornagain77

Casey Luskin is now an expert on evo-devo? What can happen in 200,000 generations? It takes roughly 50 generations to turn a population of foxes into dog-like household pets. You like to talk about evidence as opposed to imagination. What is your evidence that 200,000 generations is not enough? I bet you aren't willing to post links to pictures. The one supposedly fully aquatic still has the head and neck of a land animal. It is more seal looking than whale looking. Petrushka

So again the link is missing. Very strange behavior for a chemical molecule, from the common ancestor we got in one side sponges and only sponges since 750 Mya, and in the other branch all the living animals. Blas

Petrushka protests (too much)

I’m curious: The argument for ID in the Cambrian boils down to the lack of fossils? That’s the argument?

No, the point of 'boiling it down' was to show you that the only place transitional fossils exist is in your, and other neo-Darwinists, unrestrained imagination! On the other hand, The argument for ID is this:

Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video http://vimeo.com/32148403 The materialistic argument essentially appears to be like this: Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.” There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs -- intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter -- a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).) Stephen C. Meyer – What is the origin of the digital information found in DNA? – August 2010 - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/stephen_meyer_on_intelligent_d037271.html

bornagain77

Pet admits:

I imagine an unknown intermediate existed between whales and land animals. I search for fossils having intermediate characteristics.

yet the real world evidence states:

Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/meet_pakicetus_the_terrestrial039851.html Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify. The ambulocetus remains that have been discovered are much more complete than the first findings of pakicetus; however, crucial parts of the animal still have not been discovered. For example, the pelvic girdle has not been found.[7] Without this, there is really no way of telling how the creature moved. This, however, does not stop evolutionists from using artistic manipulations to make ambulocetus look like it is a transitional form. Very often, popular science journals, such as National Geographic, have depicted ambulocetus as being very transitional-like by giving the creature webbed feet.[8] This is another place where the reader must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Soft tissue rarely ever gets preserved, and the ambulocetus remains are no exception. In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists. http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm As for 'vestigial legs'; It turns out the 'vestigial legs' are really very functional pelvic bones instead: An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known. In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus. The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion. http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm The time for the supposed transition of whales, from some four legged creature, has now been dramatically shortened; A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica - JonathanM - October 2011 Excerpt: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/ Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story - Casey Luskin - October 18, 2011 Excerpt: In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html

bornagain77

Please answer the question: how do you test products of your imagination? How is this done, exactly?

I imagine (infer) that an undiscovered planet is perturbing the orbits of known planets. I search for the unknown planet. I imagine an unknown intermediate existed between whales and land animals. I search for fossils having intermediate characteristics. I imagine that reptiles were ancestral to birds. I look for fossils having mixed characteristics. Petrushka

Pet, why should you try to dodge the evidence by becoming a critic of grammar? Is this best you can do? criticize grammar? Have you no integrity man??? Why don't you honestly address the evidence, instead of playing silly games and finally admit that you are living in a fantasy land with your dogmatic belief in neo-Darwinism??? ,,, Moreover, science, when allowed to work properly is suppose to eliminate such unrestrained imagination, which we find rampant within neo-Darwinism (and materialism in general) yet as noted in this page:

Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos – exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos’s rigid criteria for falsification https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

,,,neo-Darwinism, and atheistic materialism in particular, has apparently retarded the proper use of science to the point where imagination, no matter how wild, is given serious consideration as a valid hypothesis! Moreover, I'm positive the Judeo-Christian founders of science would be sickened as to how atheists have polluted modern science with their materialistic dogma! bornagain77

Petrushka: Please provide an example relevant to the topic of this thread. You're asking me to provide examples of imaginary products? Please answer the question: how do you test products of your imagination? How is this done, exactly? PaV

I'm curious: The argument for ID in the Cambrian boils down to the lack of fossils? That's the argument? So did passenger pigeons exist? Am I missing something? Is there some actual content to this argument, or just an appeal to ignorance? Petrushka

How do you test products of your imagination if they don’t exist?

Please provide an example relevant to the topic of this thread. Petrushka

Yet the real world evidence states;

Your sentence construction suggests you are presenting contradictory evidence. Is the rest of your post a typographical error? Petrushka

Many of the creatures could not have evolved their hard parts after the fact as those hard parts played a fundamental role in protecting the soft parts from environmental conditions.

Environmental conditions? We have soft bodied critters today. How do they survive without protection? Petrushka

Petrushka: <iWhat separates science from theology and philosophy is not imagination, but the testing of hypotheses. How do you test products of your imagination if they don't exist? PaV

Petrushka imagines he has evidence for Bat evolution, because he cites a paper of a 50 million year old bat without echolocation. Yet the real world evidence states;

Australonycteris clarkae is the oldest bat ever found in the fossil record at 54.6 million years old. The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats. https://uncommondescent.com/biology/the-bionic-antinomy-of-darwinism/#comment-340412 Earliest known Australian Tertiary mammal fauna:- 1992 Excerpt: Radiometric dating of illites forming part of the matrix of the mammal-bearing zone has given a minimum age estimate of 54.6 plusminus 0.05 x 10^6 years, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v356/n6369/abs/356514a0.html First Eocene Bat From Australia Excerpt: Remains of a bat, Australonycteris clarkae, gen. et sp. nov., are reported from freshwater clays radiometrically dated to 54.6 million years old in southeastern Queensland, Australia. It is the oldest bat recorded for the southern hemisphere and one of the world's oldest. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523576?cookieSet=1 Australonycteris clarkae Excerpt: Australonycteris clarkae, from the Eocene of Queensland, is the oldest bat from the Southern Hemisphere and one of the oldest in the world. It is similar to other archaic Eocene bats from the Northern Hemisphere, and could probably navigate using echolocation, like most bats do today. (of note: some "modern" bats do not use echolocation today): http://australianmuseum.net.au/Australonycteris-clarkae

bornagain77

I’m sure there were, but soft bodied animals don’t get fossilized, and only a tiny fraction of bony animals get fossilized. There are no fossil passenger pigeons.

Of course soft-bodied organisms will have less of a chance of being preserved, yet there has been extensive preservation of soft-bodied animals and organs within varying strata -- just not the right strata to support an evolutionary pattern. The fossil record seems awfully selective in what is fossilized does it not... - Entirely soft-bodied creatures of several phyla appear in the Cambrian strata. - Most notably soft-bodied organisms do appear in Precambrian strata all around the world -- though none of these themselves represent credible intermediates to the Cambrian phyla. Furthermore, and more significantly, the suggestion that soft-bodied animals alone could be responsible for their hard-bodied ancestors is nonsensical. Many of the creatures could not have evolved their hard parts after the fact as those hard parts played a fundamental role in protecting the soft parts from environmental conditions.

Nevertheless I will go on record prediction that more pre-Cambrian animals will be found.

You mean sponges, or true intermediates?

Your line of reasoning argues they never existed. Right?

Right. Stu7

If you presented undisputed evidence for older metazoans I must have missed it. Needless to say, sponges did not die out prior to the Cambrian. If You wish to present evidence, kindly do so in print form. I don't have computer speakers and don't watch videos. Something along the lines of this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7180/full/nature06549.html Petrushka

Petruska imagines:

I’m sure there were, but soft bodied animals don’t get fossilized,

Yet the real world evidence states:

As well, as is often overlooked, the Ediacaran biota themselves were soft bodied, but well preserved, fossils that add even more evidence testifying to the suddenness of the Cambrian Explosion. Because to state the obvious one more time, "if there were any transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian Explosion then they certainly should have been found": Macroscopic life in the Palaeoproterozoic - July 2010 Excerpt: The Ediacaran fauna shows that soft-bodied animals were preserved in the Precambrian, even in coarse sandstone beds, suggesting that (the hypothetical transitional) fossils are not found because they were not there. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/02/macroscopic_life_in_the_palaeoproterozoi Response to John Wise - October 2010 "So, where then are those ancestors? Fossil preservation conditions were adequate to preserve animals such as jellyfish, corals, and sponges, as well as the Ediacaran fauna. It does not appear that scarcity is a fault of the fossil record." Sean Carroll developmental biologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html

bornagain77

Before this fossil find there were no metazoan fossils older than 530 million years. Now there are, and with a nice comfortable 100+ million years. Far beyond the range of dating errors.

Wait a sec, from what I understand it's about 570mya in the late Precambrian that sponges first appeared.

Now it is claimed there are no intermediates between sponges and the Cambrian animals. What do you think? Are you so confident none will ever be found that you would bet serious money? Would you bet something of serious value to you?

No the contention has always been that there are no intermediates between sponges and the Cambrian animals. That is no different now. All that has changed is the appearance of sponges has been pushed back. It has no effect on the "Cambrian explosion" itself. We still lack an intermediate of any kind that can account for the inordinate increase in biological diversity of creatures that utilise sight and numerous other multi-organ systems within around 40 phyla... come now, a sponge just doesn't cut it. Where are those "awkward", gradual animals morphing / diverging between a sponge and creatures with eyesight. Pushing back the appearance of sponges does not in anyway solve the problem that the Cambrian phyla pose for neo-Darwinism. Stu7

Pet imagines:

Before this fossil find there were no metazoan fossils older than 530 million years.

Yet the real world evidence states:

The Avalon Explosion: Excerpt: Ediacara fossils [575 to 542 million years ago (Ma)] represent Earth's oldest known complex macroscopic life forms,,, A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage—the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)—already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace. (i.e. they appeared abruptly in the fossil record and retained their same basic shape and form throughout their tenure in the fossil record before they went extinct prior to the Cambrian explosion.) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5859/81 Many times atheists will attack the Genesis account of creation in the Bible by saying that plant life on the land did not precede the Cambrian explosion of animal life in the seas as the Bible account in Genesis says it does. Yet, at about the thirty minute mark of the following video, Hugh Ross reveals that scientists have now discovered evidence that the Genesis account is in fact correct and that plant life on land did in fact precede the explosion of animal life in the seas of the Cambrian era. Science and Scripture: Enemies or Allies? - Hugh Ross - video (recorded in October 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX6ryCArkRk Here is the relevant paper that Dr. Ross referenced at the 31 minute mark: Earth’s earliest non-marine eukaryotes - April 2011 Excerpt: They offer direct evidence of eukaryotes living in freshwater aquatic and subaerially exposed habitats during the Proterozoic era. The apparent dominance of eukaryotes in non-marine settings by 1 Gyr ago indicates that eukaryotic evolution on land may have commenced far earlier than previously thought. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7348/full/nature09943.html

Pet goes on to imagine;

On the list of failed bets are bat fossils, whale fossils, feathered dinosaur fossils.

Yet the real world evidence states:

Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/ Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed http://vimeo.com/30921402 Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video http://vimeo.com/30926629 Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video http://vimeo.com/30932397

bornagain77

So basically you’re admitting there are no intermediates other than in your and the imagination of evolutionists. For which, given the truly extensive number of new phyla utilising all manner of unique biological systems, there really should be many numerous intermediate animals.

I'm sure there were, but soft bodied animals don't get fossilized, and only a tiny fraction of bony animals get fossilized. There are no fossil passenger pigeons. Nevertheless I will go on record prediction that more pre-Cambrian animals will be found. Your line of reasoning argues they never existed. Right? Petrushka

Pet states: What separates science from theology and philosophy is not imagination, but the testing of hypotheses. And yet scripture dictates:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.

HMMM Pet, seems you spoke before you thought (again)! As well, it is well known that neo-Darwinists refuse to submit their beloved hypothesis (their religion) to rigorous 'testing' by which one can hope to falsify their beloved hypothesis (their religion). In fact 'testing' that runs completely counter to neo-Darwinism, and indeed falsifies neo-Darwinism, is simply ignored.,,, So I guess it was predictable that you would defend the use of unrestrained 'imagination' in science, since neo-Darwinism is truly a science of 'unrestrained imagination', indeed neo-Darwinism is truly dependent on unrestrained imagination to even be seen as viable instead of the pseudo-science it truly is!

Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

Moreover Petruhka, 'science' does not equate with materialism in general, nor with Darwinism in particular. Second, 'science' cannot even be grounded in your atheistic-materialistic worldview!!!. Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027

Last power point of preceding video states:

The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

This 'lack of a guarantee', for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;

Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

Further notes on the mysterious reason why the Judeo-Christian presupposition would be so successful to the sustained development of modern science;

Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

bornagain77

A fairly easy web search reveals that sponges have not been regarded as ancestors of other animal lineages. They are, however, regarded as the closest to the common ancestor of animals. I'm certainly not an expert, but this discovery seems to push the fossil evidence for the divergence back quite a ways. Petrushka

I think you can safely assume that modern sponges are not ancestors of modern animals. TV characters notwithstanding. Petrushka

So basically you’re admitting there are no intermediates other than in your and the imagination of evolutionists.

Before this fossil find there were no metazoan fossils older than 530 million years. Now there are, and with a nice comfortable 100+ million years. Far beyond the range of dating errors. Why do you suppose that is? When they hadn't been found it was claimed they did not exist, and that the fossils did not exist because the animals never existed. Now it is claimed there are no intermediates between sponges and the Cambrian animals. What do you think? Are you so confident none will ever be found that you would bet serious money? Would you bet something of serious value to you? On the list of failed bets are bat fossils, whale fossils, feathered dinosaur fossils. On the list of failed molecular predictions are functional subunits of flagella and varieties of flagella having fewer parts than the one used as the icon of ID at the top of this page. Not to mention reduced versions of the blood clotting system. Every prediction of no intermediates has failed and will continue to fail. I'll bet on it. Petrushka

If imagination is not allowed, what is your theory? If imagination is not allowed, why did people look for the sponge fossils. It strikes me that the scientific imagination leads to testable hyoptheses, and the imaginary design hypothesis has remained sterile since Paley.

Really, that's your response to BA77's request to "please do list all the transitional fossils between sponges and the Cambrian animals. and no your imagination does not count as actual evidence" So basically you're admitting there are no intermediates other than in your and the imagination of evolutionists. For which, given the truly extensive number of new phyla utilising all manner of unique biological systems, there really should be many numerous intermediate animals. Stasis. Massive increase in specified biological complexity. Stasis. Massive increase in specified biological complexity. Repeat. Stu7

Imagination is essential to hypothesis formation. What separates science from theology and philosophy is not imagination, but the testing of hypotheses. You think there were metazoans before the Cambrian? then look for confirming evidence. The looking part is what makes it science. Petrushka

The studies used the wrong sponges... :) Joe

Pet, what sheer hypocrisy. You demand the right to use 'scientific imagination' because you have ZERO transitional fossils between sponges and Cambrian animals, and thus you are forced to 'imagine' them since they do not exist in reality, and then you turn right around and say 'imaginary design hypothesis' in a derogatory sense, so as to try to discredit ID, even though ID uses 'imagination' in no such 'explanatory fashion' as Darwinists continually do, but instead ID reasons from real world evidence, and the presently acting causes known to produce that real world evidence, to the most causally adequate explanation for that evidence we observe in the real world. A method of explanation that Darwin himself used to first advance his hypothesis.

Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video http://vimeo.com/32148403

It is also important to note what Darwin 'ignored restraints' that were within science at the time he formed it, and can thus be fairly said that he let 'imagination' take precedence in his hypothesis, just so as to advance his hypothesis;

Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) - October 2011 Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”. When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.,,, Just two weeks before the (re)lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/

And need I remind that Darwinism cannot even ground 'science in the first place? (Plantinga) bornagain77

As far as I know genetic studies discarted sponges as animal ancestors. Blas

If imagination is not allowed, what is your theory? If imagination is not allowed, why did people look for the sponge fossils. It strikes me that the scientific imagination leads to testable hyoptheses, and the imaginary design hypothesis has remained sterile since Paley. Petrushka

Pet, please do list all the transitional fossils between sponges and the Cambrian animals. and no your imagination does not count as actual evidence: “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.” http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm bornagain77

Apparently Wells was right. They should have been preserved and were. So the new mantra is that if animals evolved from sponges, why are there still sponges? Petrushka

Hmm extreme stasis is observed for 210 million years for a sponge. Furthermore they state:

That these organisms arose prior to the ‘snowball earth’2 and survived its extremes, presents a challenge to contemporary scientific thought.

So what we know for a fact is that we have evidence of extreme long term stasis through dramatic environmental pressures which 'should have' made them 'adapt' according to Darwinian reasoning (if their truly be such a creature as objective Darwinian reasoning), which is a very non-Darwinian finding for them to find. Moreover the authors gave no clue as to where they think the sponges came from in the first place save for their gratuitous bow of the knee to almighty King Darwin (All Hail Darwin! psst, somebody get that guy some clothes). Well, as foreign as it may be to "Darwinian reasoning', or as much as it may 'present a challenge to contemporary scientific thought', there is actually fairly strong evidence that sponges, as well as the other life, which had preceded the Cambrian Explosion of fully articulated animals in the Cambrian seas, were integral to 'terra-forming' the earth to make it a suitable habitat for the appearance of those fully articulated animals in the Cambrian seas: Notes to that effect: Interestingly, 'soft-bodied' Jellyfish and Sponges appeared suddenly in the fossil record a few ten million years before the Cambrian Explosion, and have remained virtually unchanged since they first appeared in the fossil record. Moreover, contrary to evolutionary thinking, Jellyfish and Sponges appear to have essential purpose in preparing the ecosystem for the Cambrian Explosion that was to follow.

Marine animals cause a stir - July 2009 Excerpt: Kakani Katija and John Dabiri used field measurements of jellyfish swimming in a remote island lake, combined with a new theoretical model, to demonstrate that the contribution of living organisms to ocean mixing via this mechanism is substantial — of the same order of magnitude as winds and tides. (Winds and tides, due to their prevention of stagnation, are known to be essential for life on earth.) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7255/edsumm/e090730-08.html Sponges Determine Coral Reef's Nutrient Cycle Excerpt: Sponges, which have worldwide distribution in the oceans, filter water. They take up planktonic particles such as bacteria and excrete inorganic nutrients. In turn, these nutrients can facilitate the growth of marine plants and other organisms. Sponges filter water at a phenomenal rate: if the seawater were to remain stationary, the sponges would have completely pumped it away within five minutes,,,, these organisms play a key role in the marine nutrient cycle due to their incredible capacity to convert enormous quantities of organic plankton into inorganic material (nutrients). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050917085649.htm

Fossils of all types of sponges alive today have been found virtually unchanged in Pre-Cambrian rocks. Moreover, sponges with photosynthesizing endosymbionts produce up to three times more oxygen than they consume, as well as more organic matter than they consume (Wikipedia).

Barrel and Chimney Sponges Filtering Water - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7E1rq7zHLc

Moreover sponge embryos are actually one piece of evidence that argues forcefully against the 'incomplete fossil record argument' that evolutionists try to use to 'explain away' the missing transitional forms in the fossil record:

Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.” http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

further notes:

Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263 Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - Sept. 2009 Excerpt: "The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved." http://www.discovery.org/a/12471 Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWEsW7bO8P4 Exotic Cambrian Animals and Plants and Ediacaran biota- Animated video clips http://www.lightproductionsvideo.com/Cambrian-Animals.html

Verse and Music:

Psalm 104:24 O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions Alison Krauss - There Is A Reason http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs

bornagain77

This paper can also be freely downloaded here: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/15982/1/SpongeNamibia.pdf Enezio E. De Almeida Filho