We are not two cards leaning against one another where one card can not exist without the other. Gradual addition is possible for everything we have seen, and your clotting example is such an example; As long as every step is a net positive, it doesn't matter if there are downsides to be ironed out.
Clotting at all is a HUGE advantage over getting punctured and dying. Sure, there are downsides if you're missing the complex regulatory and safety features modern clotting has, but circulatory systems have existed almost as long as true multicellular organisms have - bleeding out has been a selective pressure that whole time.
So first you clot, and that's a game changer. Sure if it clots in the wrong place or if you can't clear it you'll meat the double edge of that sword but hey - being punctured is no longer a guaranteed death sentence. That's a NET POSITIVE.
Then you evolve all the other features we come to have.
'Darwinian' evolution absolutely has the evidence to support it. All the way from the biochemical at the level of nucleic acid formation into self replication, to cooperative association to form proto-cells, to gradual organ development as with eyes, systems development like the circulatory system to include clotting, to the organism level where we gain and lose traits adapting to an environment and it's pressures in species altering fashions. It's all there.
It's all from god, and you have missed it because you somehow think god's grand plan is incompatible with god... all because you hated the messenger.
I can't argue against a position you haven't articulated.
You say the Cambrian explosion completely invalidates Darwin, but... what?? how?? I can't even imagine why you would think such a thing in the first place.
The Cambrian explosion is an event that occurred roughly 550 million years ago. Up until that point, for billions of years, life had not progressesd beyond very basic forms such as rudimentary jellyfish, worms, and sponges. Suddenly, there was an explosion of complex life in a very short time period. All the major phyla and some that are now extinct just appear in the fossil record. No gradual change, no transitional fossils, nothing that would support the idea that this event came about from the Darwinian theory of gradual evolution.
This sudden burst of complex life defies Darwin's theory and renders it nothing more than a footnote in history. He theorized that future discoveries in the fossil record would produce transitional species and prove his idea of gradual evolution.The Cambrian discovery decades later did the exact opposite. Now, this leads to the logical conclusion that his theory is as of right now, wrong, because the evidence discovered directly contradicts it.
So, tell me, how does Darwinian evolution explain a documented event that directly contradicts the very core of the theory?
The short answer is one change, that itself is profound, that opens up a wide untapped evolutionary space for evolutionary exploration. Which is precisely what occurred in the Cambrian.
In a billion years you could say something similarly outrageous about humans, tool use, and thinking creatures. Billions of years of the same sort of self centered instinct driven organisms then (from their future perspective) boom, suddenly mammals, pack animals, social creatures, thinking, tool using. In the snap of a finger there are cities and technology, and a single species dominating the globe. Where's the fossil record of where it all came from? It was all reptiles and birds and fish and then in a blink of an eye suddenly spacefaring self aware social creatures with huge extremely well developed brains.
You're not going to find a ten thousand year fossil record buried in all that. So that's 'not evolution', there was no gradual process. That has to therefore be intelligent design. Someone snapped their fingers and put them there like that with purpose and intention. And we are nothing special compared to what sparked the Cambrian!
The Cambrian was a paradigm shift of proportions I'd argue even greater than cyano bacteria. You went from at most colonies of the same, or collaborative single cells banding together to share divergent function, to the game charger: A single cell containing all the regulatory capacity to differentiate. If it was at the top of the colony it produced more chloroplasts, if at the sides it produced defenses against invaders, if at the bottom it produced more flagellum.
This wasn't a game changer just because it made the perfectly optimized colony, but because it was the development of a toolset that made the previously impossible, possible. Proper multicellular organisms. The world had never seen a tail before, but now you could. Light sensitive patches in a cell could detect light and shadow, but now 'eye' cells could cluster together, they could bend inward the way multicellular structures can and cell membranes can't to create cups and then pinholes, and sight as we better know it. You could become large, too large for anything single celled to predate upon.
All thanks to unlocking regulatory processes that allowed for cellular differentialization!
And because all this was new, because there was no competition in these spaces to restrict, and because so much was such low hanging evolutionary fruit, it happened very quickly. A complex nervous system takes time, but a simple one doesn't. Legs are quite difficult actually, but neither a tail's construction or it's use is hard. And because there is no apex creature out there to constrain, evolution can try a thousand different suboptimal variations as it fills out and explores the world's diverse niches. You can get there fast, in an assortment of combinations because you don't have to build the perfect combination like we do today, any tail is an advantage. Any eye, any system to anchor yourself to the sea bed, or grasp, or bite, the bar is so low and the rewards so immense.
Today we have things largely figured out, back then they hadn't. You could have the perfect eye but not figured out locomotion yet, while some long distant cousin had perfected locomotion but not vision - so neither had an aggregate advantage. Both competed relatively equally for the same niche, so two version (or three, or thirteen) could co-exist where today one would compete out the rest. Because this ends up being the case across so many additional dimensions, invertebrates, vertebrates, exoskeletons, fins, gills, pinchers and teeth and mouths, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems -- so many early and unperfected systems unique to life as a multicellular organism that you end up with insane diversity. Because each of these dimensions was one where you could advantage yourself in a way to compete against the others that were further along a different path in another.
Today we have less comparative diversity because there is largely a right way to do all these things, learned back in the days of the Cambrian. We can't have a predator with shitty vision that makes up for it with great locomotion, because we have predators with both that will out compete it. When organisms first burst onto the scene, everything low hanging was there to trial without cost of being punished because everything was new and advantage, until one species figured it all out, another down another path which figured things out in a different order could compete.
Measured against today, it was fast and diverse, but of course it was. Today isn't the benchmark. If you want to take the Savanah from the Lions, you can't just be a cheetah, or a hyena both serving a different niche - you have to be a straight up better lion. The Cambrian had dozens of new dimensions to advance and coexist in incompleteness along.
No transitional fossils just means it happened fast. Gradual, but fast. And it only takes one thing, just one new change to go from extremely simple life, to complex life - internal regulation. It's how a single embryo and a single sperm turn into a human being. It's the systems which allow our cells to query their environment and their neighbors and up regulate this protein, down regulate the expression of this gene, and become myocardial versus neural.
What the precise factor was that took basic regulation to the levels necessary for proper multicellular organisms is unknown but irrelevant - the advantage once that threshold is past is absurdly profound and invariably leads where we see it lead. And which ever cellular species that got there first was destined to be THE precursor to everything that would quickly follow.
I suppose the TLDR is: Who told you evolution is necessarily slow?
We are not irreducibly complex
We are not two cards leaning against one another where one card can not exist without the other. Gradual addition is possible for everything we have seen, and your clotting example is such an example; As long as every step is a net positive, it doesn't matter if there are downsides to be ironed out.
Clotting at all is a HUGE advantage over getting punctured and dying. Sure, there are downsides if you're missing the complex regulatory and safety features modern clotting has, but circulatory systems have existed almost as long as true multicellular organisms have - bleeding out has been a selective pressure that whole time.
So first you clot, and that's a game changer. Sure if it clots in the wrong place or if you can't clear it you'll meat the double edge of that sword but hey - being punctured is no longer a guaranteed death sentence. That's a NET POSITIVE.
Then you evolve all the other features we come to have.
'Darwinian' evolution absolutely has the evidence to support it. All the way from the biochemical at the level of nucleic acid formation into self replication, to cooperative association to form proto-cells, to gradual organ development as with eyes, systems development like the circulatory system to include clotting, to the organism level where we gain and lose traits adapting to an environment and it's pressures in species altering fashions. It's all there.
It's all from god, and you have missed it because you somehow think god's grand plan is incompatible with god... all because you hated the messenger.
Explain the Cambrian explosion using the Darwinian theory of evolution. I know we aren't going to agree, but I want to hear your take on it.
I can't argue against a position you haven't articulated.
You say the Cambrian explosion completely invalidates Darwin, but... what?? how?? I can't even imagine why you would think such a thing in the first place.
The Cambrian explosion is an event that occurred roughly 550 million years ago. Up until that point, for billions of years, life had not progressesd beyond very basic forms such as rudimentary jellyfish, worms, and sponges. Suddenly, there was an explosion of complex life in a very short time period. All the major phyla and some that are now extinct just appear in the fossil record. No gradual change, no transitional fossils, nothing that would support the idea that this event came about from the Darwinian theory of gradual evolution.
This sudden burst of complex life defies Darwin's theory and renders it nothing more than a footnote in history. He theorized that future discoveries in the fossil record would produce transitional species and prove his idea of gradual evolution.The Cambrian discovery decades later did the exact opposite. Now, this leads to the logical conclusion that his theory is as of right now, wrong, because the evidence discovered directly contradicts it.
So, tell me, how does Darwinian evolution explain a documented event that directly contradicts the very core of the theory?
The short answer is one change, that itself is profound, that opens up a wide untapped evolutionary space for evolutionary exploration. Which is precisely what occurred in the Cambrian.
In a billion years you could say something similarly outrageous about humans, tool use, and thinking creatures. Billions of years of the same sort of self centered instinct driven organisms then (from their future perspective) boom, suddenly mammals, pack animals, social creatures, thinking, tool using. In the snap of a finger there are cities and technology, and a single species dominating the globe. Where's the fossil record of where it all came from? It was all reptiles and birds and fish and then in a blink of an eye suddenly spacefaring self aware social creatures with huge extremely well developed brains.
You're not going to find a ten thousand year fossil record buried in all that. So that's 'not evolution', there was no gradual process. That has to therefore be intelligent design. Someone snapped their fingers and put them there like that with purpose and intention. And we are nothing special compared to what sparked the Cambrian!
The Cambrian was a paradigm shift of proportions I'd argue even greater than cyano bacteria. You went from at most colonies of the same, or collaborative single cells banding together to share divergent function, to the game charger: A single cell containing all the regulatory capacity to differentiate. If it was at the top of the colony it produced more chloroplasts, if at the sides it produced defenses against invaders, if at the bottom it produced more flagellum.
This wasn't a game changer just because it made the perfectly optimized colony, but because it was the development of a toolset that made the previously impossible, possible. Proper multicellular organisms. The world had never seen a tail before, but now you could. Light sensitive patches in a cell could detect light and shadow, but now 'eye' cells could cluster together, they could bend inward the way multicellular structures can and cell membranes can't to create cups and then pinholes, and sight as we better know it. You could become large, too large for anything single celled to predate upon.
All thanks to unlocking regulatory processes that allowed for cellular differentialization!
And because all this was new, because there was no competition in these spaces to restrict, and because so much was such low hanging evolutionary fruit, it happened very quickly. A complex nervous system takes time, but a simple one doesn't. Legs are quite difficult actually, but neither a tail's construction or it's use is hard. And because there is no apex creature out there to constrain, evolution can try a thousand different suboptimal variations as it fills out and explores the world's diverse niches. You can get there fast, in an assortment of combinations because you don't have to build the perfect combination like we do today, any tail is an advantage. Any eye, any system to anchor yourself to the sea bed, or grasp, or bite, the bar is so low and the rewards so immense.
Today we have things largely figured out, back then they hadn't. You could have the perfect eye but not figured out locomotion yet, while some long distant cousin had perfected locomotion but not vision - so neither had an aggregate advantage. Both competed relatively equally for the same niche, so two version (or three, or thirteen) could co-exist where today one would compete out the rest. Because this ends up being the case across so many additional dimensions, invertebrates, vertebrates, exoskeletons, fins, gills, pinchers and teeth and mouths, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems -- so many early and unperfected systems unique to life as a multicellular organism that you end up with insane diversity. Because each of these dimensions was one where you could advantage yourself in a way to compete against the others that were further along a different path in another.
Today we have less comparative diversity because there is largely a right way to do all these things, learned back in the days of the Cambrian. We can't have a predator with shitty vision that makes up for it with great locomotion, because we have predators with both that will out compete it. When organisms first burst onto the scene, everything low hanging was there to trial without cost of being punished because everything was new and advantage, until one species figured it all out, another down another path which figured things out in a different order could compete.
Measured against today, it was fast and diverse, but of course it was. Today isn't the benchmark. If you want to take the Savanah from the Lions, you can't just be a cheetah, or a hyena both serving a different niche - you have to be a straight up better lion. The Cambrian had dozens of new dimensions to advance and coexist in incompleteness along.
No transitional fossils just means it happened fast. Gradual, but fast. And it only takes one thing, just one new change to go from extremely simple life, to complex life - internal regulation. It's how a single embryo and a single sperm turn into a human being. It's the systems which allow our cells to query their environment and their neighbors and up regulate this protein, down regulate the expression of this gene, and become myocardial versus neural.
What the precise factor was that took basic regulation to the levels necessary for proper multicellular organisms is unknown but irrelevant - the advantage once that threshold is past is absurdly profound and invariably leads where we see it lead. And which ever cellular species that got there first was destined to be THE precursor to everything that would quickly follow.
I suppose the TLDR is: Who told you evolution is necessarily slow?