Is the human mind a product of evolution?

Temujin

Well-known member
Correct That is Darwin's Gradualism. Each species would need intermediate for thousands of gradual steps.

But the "Cambrian Explosion" they say all popped up at the same time and were complete.
Nobody says that. There are plenty of fossils that pre-date the Cambrian. The major change of the Cambrian "explosion" was the evolution of body structures that fossilise more readily, plus the extraordinarily good fossilising medium of the Burgess shale.

Nothing springs into being fully formed. Any writing claiming that any complex organism was formed in an instant is either "poetry" or lying. I'm sure you can think of an example.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Nobody says that. There are plenty of fossils that pre-date the Cambrian. The major change of the Cambrian "explosion" was the evolution of body structures that fossilise more readily, plus the extraordinarily good fossilising medium of the Burgess shale.

Nothing springs into being fully formed. Any writing claiming that any complex organism was formed in an instant is either "poetry" or lying. I'm sure you can think of an example.
Where did the information come from for those new body types?
And where is your evidence nature caused the universe and life to begin?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Where did the information come from for those new body types?
And where is your evidence nature caused the universe and life to begin?
Mutation of the old body types.

In the absence of evidence for anything other than nature existing, nature is all we have.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Your evidence is? Where did the original information come from in the first cell?

Thats not evidence - its an argument from ignorance.
The environment.

Not at all. It is a presumption that can and will be dropped should evidence of anything that is not nature appear. Do you have any?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
That's not evidence its an argument from ignorance.
Prove naturalism true.
Start with your claim nature caused the universe.
Argument from ignorance claims that something is true unless it is proved false. You should know, you do it all the time. You do it right here, claiming that naturalism is false because I have not proved it to be true. That is not what I say. I say that until evidence appears that something other than nature exists, then my working assumption is that there is nothing but nature. You are welcome to presume that the supernatural exists, but don't expect me, or any other reasonable person, to believe it without any evidence. Such an assertion would be an argument from ignorance.
 

Nathan P

Member
You are wrong here. See Lyko (2019) for a new species directly descended from the initial species after a single mutation. That is zero intermediate species. A single mutation in the offspring led to the origin of a new parthenogenic species of crayfish.
That has nothing to do directly with what we are talking about. The only relation it has to do with what we are talking about is it says it is considered a new species that would require intermediates. Nowhere does it say intermediates were not required.
 

rossum

Well-known member
That has nothing to do directly with what we are talking about. The only relation it has to do with what we are talking about is it says it is considered a new species that would require intermediates. Nowhere does it say intermediates were not required.
I have the evidence that intermediates are not required, and I gave you a link to that evidence. I agree that intermediates are often found, but not always as the evidence shows.

There is certainly no requirement for there to be "thousands" of intermediates.
 

Nathan P

Member
I have the evidence that intermediates are not required, and I gave you a link to that evidence. I agree that intermediates are often found, but not always as the evidence shows.

There is certainly no requirement for there to be "thousands" of intermediates.
It said nothing about intermediates not being required. I have known from 2nd grade on that many intermediates would have been required.
 

rossum

Well-known member
It said nothing about intermediates not being required. I have known from 2nd grade on that many intermediates would have been required.
I provided evidence of a new species forming from the predecessor species with no intermediates. That research was recent, so it probably was published after you were in second grade. As science discovers new things, the new data is incorporated into general scientific knowledge.
 

Nathan P

Member
I provided evidence of a new species forming from the predecessor species with no intermediates. That research was recent, so it probably was published after you were in second grade. As science discovers new things, the new data is incorporated into general scientific knowledge.
It says nothing there about there being no intermediates. Instead it says only that it should be considered a distinct or new species.
 

Nathan P

Member
Nobody says that. There are plenty of fossils that pre-date the Cambrian. The major change of the Cambrian "explosion" was the evolution of body structures that fossilise more readily, plus the extraordinarily good fossilising medium of the Burgess shale.

Nothing springs into being fully formed. Any writing claiming that any complex organism was formed in an instant is either "poetry" or lying. I'm sure you can think of an example.
He is not saying they formed in an instant and instead is pointing out they appear in the fossil record abruptly with no intermediate forms linking them.
 
Top