MennoNet.com

Free to watch if you can suffer through the commercials (not a whole lot of them, though). Proof of intelligent design in the fossil record.


https://tubitv.com/movies/612878/darwin-s-dilemma

I watched it a long time ago. The movie is a complete mess and not proof of anything. Essentially it makes the claim that the Cambrian Explosion which occurred about 540 million years ago is evidence of intelligent design because many modern phyla emerged at that point in time. And that the Cambrian Explosion represents some sort of "intelligent design" creation event. However....

1. The film accepts geological time and modern scientific estimates of the age of the earth as being 4.5 billion years old and that life has existed on earth for possibly as long as 3.5 billion years. So it is a complete rejection of any sort of "Young Earth" creationism or literal interpretation of Genesis that many here seem to hold.

2. The film seems to treat the Cambrian Explosion as a single event or point in time when in fact it was not an instantaneous creation event but lasted between 10 and 20 million years. Which is plenty of time for much evolution to have occurred.

3. The film ignores the fact that vertebrate life and the first vertebrates did not even begin to appear until at least 100 million years after the Cambrian Explosion. The first vertebrates did not appear in the fossil record until about 450 million years ago which is 100 million years after the Cambrian Explosion. That includes all higher animals (mammals, reptiles, fish, amphibians, birds, etc.)

4. The film ignores the fact that flowering plants which produce nearly all the food we eat (and that was eaten in Biblical times) did not appear until the Cretaceous about 140 million years ago.

5. The film makes a big deal about "missing links" or lack of transitional forms when in fact the fossil record is replete with them and they are all around us today. For example, marine mammals

Darwin's dilemma seems to be that there is no experimental proof of his theory. That is, nobody has till now created a new species by subdividing a former species into different races with prevailing endogamy. But it might be done some day.

PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 6:58 amDarwin's dilemma seems to be that there is no experimental proof of his theory. That is, nobody has till now created a new species by subdividing a former species into different races with prevailing endogamy. But it might be done some day.

In a million years, perhaps?

PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 6:58 am Darwin's dilemma seems to be that there is no experimental proof of his theory. That is, nobody has till now created a new species by subdividing a former species into different races with prevailing endogamy. But it might be done some day.

Sure they have. It happens all the time.

For example, in the past several thousand years, humans have selectively bred the original teosinte plant Zea diploperennis Into modern corn, which is Zea mays. They are now considered two distinct species.



Another example? Over time, humans have also bred wolves (Canis lupus) into dogs (Canis familiaris)

In any event, the actual concept of "species" is an artificial construct that humans have imposed onto nature's genome, which doesn't necessarily fall into ordered categories of species.

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:02 pm
Sure they have. It happens all the time.

For example, in the past several thousand years, humans have selectively bred the original teosinte plant Zea diploperennis Into modern corn, which is Zea mays. They are now considered two distinct species.

Another example? Over time, humans have also bred wolves (Canis lupus) into dogs (Canis familiaris)

In any event, the actual concept of "species" is an artificial construct that humans have imposed onto nature's genome, which doesn't necessarily fall into ordered categories of species.

Very interesting

Soloist wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:26 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:02 pm
Sure they have. It happens all the time.

For example, in the past several thousand years, humans have selectively bred the original teosinte plant Zea diploperennis Into modern corn, which is Zea mays. They are now considered two distinct species.

Another example? Over time, humans have also bred wolves (Canis lupus) into dogs (Canis familiaris)

In any event, the actual concept of "species" is an artificial construct that humans have imposed onto nature's genome, which doesn't necessarily fall into ordered categories of species.

Very interesting

But also true. For example, here is a cladogram showing the evolution of the modern whale. Despite the different pictures, you cannot subdivide this process into a long series of separate species from the prehistoric land animal ancestor to the modern whale. Those would all be artificial distinctions or arbitrary lines (human constructs) imposed on what is actually a long constant evolutionary process. The process doesn't jump from separate species to separate species. That doesn't mean we don't constantly use the concept of "species" in science. Of course we do. Because it is a useful organizational construct.

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:02 pm

PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 6:58 am Darwin's dilemma seems to be that there is no experimental proof of his theory. That is, nobody has till now created a new species by subdividing a former species into different races with prevailing endogamy. But it might be done some day.

Sure they have. It happens all the time.

For example, in the past several thousand years, humans have selectively bred the original teosinte plant Zea diploperennis Into modern corn, which is Zea mays. They are now considered two distinct species.



Another example? Over time, humans have also bred wolves (Canis lupus) into dogs (Canis familiaris)

In any event, the actual concept of "species" is an artificial construct that humans have imposed onto nature's genome, which doesn't necessarily fall into ordered categories of species.

Can you find me all those intermediate forms in the fossil record? Oops no you can't because they straight up don't exist.

Evolution is nothing more than academic nonsense to be mocked openly.

nett wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:01 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:02 pm

PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 6:58 am Darwin's dilemma seems to be that there is no experimental proof of his theory. That is, nobody has till now created a new species by subdividing a former species into different races with prevailing endogamy. But it might be done some day.

Sure they have. It happens all the time.

For example, in the past several thousand years, humans have selectively bred the original teosinte plant Zea diploperennis Into modern corn, which is Zea mays. They are now considered two distinct species.



Another example? Over time, humans have also bred wolves (Canis lupus) into dogs (Canis familiaris)

In any event, the actual concept of "species" is an artificial construct that humans have imposed onto nature's genome, which doesn't necessarily fall into ordered categories of species.

Can you find me all those intermediate forms in the fossil record? Oops no you can't because they straight up don't exist.

Evolution is nothing more than academic nonsense to be mocked openly.

Mock away.