Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

A new phylum requires MAJOR development (example: totally new body plan), species and genus don't.

For new phyla to show up suddenly in the fossil record without transition is a slap in the face to the evolutionary concept.

New species with slight differences between it and the previous species by definition would say that there was an identifiable transition.

Quote:

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it (Lewin, 1988).

Lewin then asked the all important question:

"Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?"

Lewin, R. (1988)
Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

"Its hard to escape the suspicion that what we witness in the CAmbrian is mostly a tinkering with developmental systems already firmly established by the time Cambrian beasts showed up"...

"Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?"

Lewin, R. (1988)
Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

The New York Times reports that a chemistry professor has retracted an old paper he wrote after he found out it was being cited on creationist websites.

Quote:

........In it, Dr. Jacobson speculated on the chemical qualities of earth in Hadean time, billions of years ago when the planet was beginning to cool down to the point where, as Dr. Jacobson put it, "one could imagine a few hardy compounds could survive."..........

............Another creationist site, Evolution-facts.org, says his findings mean that "within a few minutes, all the various parts of the living organism had to make themselves out of sloshing water," an impossible feat without a supernatural hand.

"Ouch," Dr. Jacobson said. "It was hideous."...........

Retraction or no, this objection to abiogenesis is valid

Any supposed pre-biotic compounds, amino acids, proteins, xNA, etc that one imagines would have likely have been soon destroyed by the very environment that supposedly generated them

Quote:

Retraction or no, this objection to abiogenesis is valid

In the ensuing 50 years since he published that, abiogenesis has gained an even stronger foothold in biochemistry.

Quote:

Any supposed pre-biotic compounds, amino acids, proteins, xNA, etc that one imagines would have likely have been soon destroyed by the very environment that supposedly generated them

And your vast research experience leads you to this conclusion how?

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Retraction or no, this objection to abiogenesis is valid

In the ensuing 50 years since he published that, abiogenesis has gained an even stronger foothold in biochemistry.

Quote:

Any supposed pre-biotic compounds, amino acids, proteins, xNA, etc that one imagines would have likely have been soon destroyed by the very environment that supposedly generated them

And your vast research experience leads you to this conclusion how?

Hmm. Perhaps I'm wrong.

What do you think happens to protein or DNA left in the open environment, farmerman?

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Retraction or no, this objection to abiogenesis is valid

In the ensuing 50 years since he published that, abiogenesis has gained an even stronger foothold in biochemistry.

Quote:

Any supposed pre-biotic compounds, amino acids, proteins, xNA, etc that one imagines would have likely have been soon destroyed by the very environment that supposedly generated them

And your vast research experience leads you to this conclusion how?

Hmm. Perhaps I'm wrong.

What do you think happens to protein or DNA left in the open environment, farmerman?

RL always makes it sound as if there was one little DNA strand or one little amino acid floating about instead of thinking about the trillions that were possible.

Joe(only the what survive?)Nation

Any supposed pre-biotic compounds, amino acids, proteins, xNA, etc that one imagines would have likely have been soon destroyed by the very environment that supposedly generated them

Farmerman wrote:

And your vast research experience leads you to this conclusion how?

Hmm. Perhaps I'm wrong.

What do you think happens to protein or DNA left in the open environment, farmerman?

Joe Nation wrote:

RL always makes it sound as if there was one little DNA strand or one little amino acid floating about instead of thinking about the trillions that were possible.

Joe(only the what survive?)Nation

Considering the difficulty Miller and Urey had trying to generate things on purpose, you need to show why you think trillions of them are realistically possible due to chance.

Retraction or no, this objection to abiogenesis is valid.