Creationism (con) vs Evolution (pro)

I was just asking you to clear up what you said in R1The Fossil RecordCon didn't address the main argument for evolution here. That the fossils are properly sorted"He must be dreaming. I make no sense of his words."You could of told me what exactly you didn't understand.The point of this is the fossils in the layers have the same density of those in the same layer somewhere else in the world,so the antedilvian world(The period referred to in the Bible between the Creation of the Earth and the flood[1]) would of been wall-to-wall fossils. So much that our biosphere couldn't of supported all.The Cambrian Explosion The creatures in the Cambrain era did have evolutionary ancestors in the Precambrian eraMany phyla, including the Cnidarians, Mollusca, Annelida, and Arthropoda appeared in the Precambrian. Along with many complex life forms.In any case, not all of the phyla present in the Cambrian were anything like their modern representatives. Many, if not all Cambrian organisms appear different, and more primitive than their later relatives. For example, the Cambrian eocrinoid echinoderm Gogia spiralis was attached to the substrate by a short, thick, plate-covered stem and holdfast, while later eocrinoids developed the long, slender stems made up of columnal disks typical of their descendants, the crinoids and blastoids. Equally, neither bryozoans, nor any of the major vertebrate groups most people are familiar with (fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, or birds) appear in the Cambrian. [2]The evolution of complex organisms requires all the basic components of complex life (i.e. the ability to produce bone-like structures, hormonal regulation etc). The precambrian explosion simply indicates the point in time when all the necessary substrates of complex animals arrived allowing for the creation of all the different phyla.[3]In 1997 Caltech scientists reported a mechanism for much more rapid plate movement relative to earth's poles resulting in both rapid and unstable climate changes. This mechanism would stress ecological subsystems severely thus promoting more rapid evolutionary change. [4]Lack of hard parts would make it very difficult for fossilization to occur. As you have linked to the story on the fossilized ink pack, yet this is a red herring. Since one fossilization event doesn't speak for evolution or all fossils for that matter. It is very rare for soft bodied organisms to fossilize[5]. If a soft-bodied creature is covered by sediment or muck soon after it dies, the impression of the body will be preserved as the material hardens over time. This doesn't prove that we should have more pre-cambrian fossils,since soft bodied fossils are still very rare. This isn't a prediction of evolution itself. If it was and if evolution is false then we would see an abundance of soft bodied fossils. It is well known fossils can from quickly. Scientists don't claim that fossils have take a long time to form. Thus this is just a red herringThe Cambrian explosion isn't evidence for creationism,but against.[6] If YEC were true, the explosion would involve not just some crustaceans, trilobites, and various unusual marine forms, but a total cross-section of all of the millions of clades that have ever existed, including fish, dinosaurs, and giraffes. (After all, under the YEC model, God did not create any new taxa any time after the first week). It would be an "Everything explosion".Chromosome fusionWhy would human chromosome 2 have virtually the same genetic layout as is found in the two chimp chromosomes?Furthermore, the evolutionary process would tend to remove over time the non-functional teleomere and centromere coding, thus causing the changes that were found. The fact is that there are still remnants of both in the EXACT places they should be if there was a fusion of the two chromosomes.Biologist PZ Myers critiqued Bergman and Tomkins' essay basically saying it attacks straw men and goes off on red herrings.[7]Here is a portion"The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence.What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And the prediction has been confirmed.Bergman and Tomkins ignore every single bit of that. Instead, what they do is focus on just the region of the fusion, and complain that it is a tangled mess and hard to interpret — that it is a degenerate telomeric region, rather than a complete and intact telomere, which is what they demand be present. This is an unrealistic expectation, given that every paper on the structure of the fusion region makes the point that it is degenerate.An analogy: Two trucks crash into each other. You’d be able to look at the crash and still tell by everything in and behind the engine compartment that Car #1 was a Mustang and Car #2 was an X6.Bergman and Tomkins are the bewildered and incompetent investigators who ignore every other factor in the crash, look at a few particularly mangled bits of the wreckage, and declare that they can’t identify it, therefore…the two vehicles were assembled at the factory in this particular configuration, and no crash occurred. But they use lots of sciencey language to explain this at tendentious length, which is sufficient to convince non-scientists that the interpretation of an obvious historical event has been refuted. And that’s all they need to do to accomplish their goals: fling about unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to win over the ignorant."ERVsThis is from Abbie Smith's blog(which is now on science blogs[8]). "As a defense against the argument that 'junk DNA', including nonfunctional ERVs, is evidence against their choice* of 'Designer', Creationists insist that ERVs are functional.There is a very big difference between a functional ERV, and a functional component of an ERV. Creationists do not understand this (specific example here)Yes, we have found a retroviral env that has been co-opted by mammals. Yes, somewhere around 100 human proteins might have evolved from co-opted gag proteins. Yes, we can find retroviral transcripts floating about cells, sometimes. But these are not examples of ERV functionality. They examples of evolution in action-- the host organism salvaging ERV parts for its own use. Complete ERVs are recombined, mutated, and methylated into junk. When they regain some semblance of functionality, they cause disease! Which is no surprise, as exogenous retroviruses like HIV and HTLV cause AIDS, leukaemia, lymphomas, and various other autoimmune diseases.ERVs specific to humans, called HERVs, have been tied to multiple cancers, including germ-cell tumors, breast cancer, seminomas, melanoma, ovarian cancer... And autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and lupus (please see this source for more information).These are just the human-specific ERVs. We have lots more.DISCLAIMER-- Currently, ERV->disease research is very new, as are the methods we use for studying why they become active (epigenetics). 'Functional' ERVs might be the cause of disease, the effect of disease, or both (the effect, but perpetuates the disease, what I think is going on with ERVs and cancer).But one thing is certain thus far-- You do not want ERVs to be functional."[9]Pro's assumptions That no supernatural acts can occurRed herring. My view on God is irrelevant evolution. As there are many who believe in both God and evolution No Creator had any influence on the earthRed herring again. Above appliesOut of spaceSources in link below.[1]http://tny.cz...