Pageant of Evolution - Cambrian what?

The only way to demonstrate Wells is any of the things you say he is, is to quote something he’s written or said (in that YouTube clip) and then show how that conflicts with some already established facts, since you can’t do that every criticism you make of him is nothing other than prejudice.
No, that's not the only way. We're playing this game. That's not how science works at all. This point counter-point thing is an invention of modern media. Science is done by study and collecting data and following that to conclusions.

“… every criticism you make of him is nothing other than prejudice.”

Sherlock, Is every disagreement a case of prejudice?

It is perfectly acceptable to not tolerate ignorance when it’s being spread in the form of false facts. Pretty sure that’s all Citizen’ is doing, as there are no personal attacks against Wells, only a small sampling of the many sources showing his ignorance.

If there are other ways of disagreeing with someone that don’t make you think there is a personal prejudice involved, please demonstrate.

You refer to “studying data” well in this case the data is the audio content of Wells’ interview – I’d like us to study that, in particular I’d like you to tell us what part of that data is suspect, what claims Wells makes that are demonstrably false.
This content is not data. It's bad science. The way you know that is you read good science. Would a science teacher spend his class time showing bad science and then explaining why it's bad? Maybe a little, but he would have to first teach actual science. If you have that, you would know this is crap. You would respond with, "hey he left out 20th century discoveries", "wait a minute, he just called 5 million years a blip in time", "he said nothing about why some animals didn't leave fossils".

That’s what I did while I was listening. I was also building an outhouse so I didn’t stop and wash my hands and write down time stamps because I can tell you would just argue with me with your bad logic anyway.

and you’re the arbiter of what (good science) is Lausten?
And there it is. No, I’m not the arbiter. I’m telling you how you have a scientific discussion. It’s up to you to use those methods or not. Don’t take my word for it. I’m not taking yours. You are telling me in advance that you won’t accept my opinion, then asking my opinion. Games.
What did Wells say that was “crap”?
That’s been answered at least 3 times now.
if you don’t actually know or recall what Wells said that constitutes a “lie” or “misrepresentation” then surely the right thing to do is go back,….
I do recall. I listed 3 of them. Do you not recall those things? Can you scroll up and see what’s in quotes? Why do you skip over the actual answer to your question?

You are a lightweight. You don’t understand that omitting facts is a way of lying. It’s a way of getting someone to believe your line of reasoning. It’s the basis of many documentaries. It’s how fake news is done. So, that’s 1 and 3.

I don’t care if it was “blip” or .1% or what, it was said several times and you just repeated it here. In the course of billions of years of evolution the odds of many species coming on the scene in a few million years is well within any mathematical calculation. You’ve done nothing but some dumb clock analogy and some word play on “explosion”. You’re going to have to do better.

On another thread, Sherlock said this, “…since Penrose is an established theoretical physicist with a deep understanding of quantum physics, I don’t see it as remarkable or sensational that he refer to it, a subject he’s contributed to deeply for decades.”

Why is it not possible for Sherlock to accept the same position regarding all of the numerous, established, reputable scientists who reject Wells’ opinions? Wouldn’t the logical argument he used in the other thread be just as useful in this instance?

Strange he uses a good argument in one place and rejects it in another- I wonder why he would do such a thing?

  • "...both reputable physicists but one is an ass..."
Ad hominem and therefore irrelevant, as you yourself also state numerous times elsewhere.
  • " ...hypotheses about common descent are just hypotheses..."
  • "I’m satisfied that the natural descent hypotheses is incionsistent with observation when examining the Cambrian explostion..."
Argument from ignorance isn't going to carry the day here (I wish that logical fallacy had a different name- is sounds so darn nasty when pointing it out.) Truth isn't based on votes, but ya gotta be obtuse to ignore 99.9% of scientists to follow the 0.1%. Besides, it's the Theory of Evolution, not the Hypothesis of Evolution- you do know that 'theory' in science is about as confident as it comes, right? As in Theory of Gravity level confidence.
"...so far nobody has quoted anything he said in the interview that justifies calling him a liar."
It's a strawman to claim we're calling Wells a liar. Wells is simply wrong- whether he's a liar or ignorant of the preponderance of evidence is irrelevant to that fact. Since I don't believe anyone here is calling him a liar, you're not going to get a response to that strawman.

Can you link to what Wells believes in text format? I’m unable to watch videos here at work, so if I can’t read his stuff others will have to provide some of the instances where Wells is wrong.

It’s not the origin of the word that is the problem, it’s how you are interpreting it.

Read this, maybe it will help Icon of Obfuscation

In case that’s too long for you, here’s a relevant quote

"The term 'explosion' should not be taken too literally, but in terms of evolution it is still very dramatic. What it means is the rapid diversification of animal life. 'Rapid' in this case means a few millions of years, rather than the tens or even hundreds of millions of years that are more typical when we consider evolution in the fossil record." And of course one of the central points of Conway Morris's entire book is that the morphological disparity that emerges in the Cambrian, often invoked by Wells & co. via quotation of people like Stephen J. Gould, is not quite as radical as the ID advocates or even Gould would have it.

Excuse me for belaboring the point, but so long as Dr. Holmes, chooses to ignore it, I chose to belabor it:

The apparent suddenness was even a dilemma for Charles Darwin, since this sudden fossil proliferation was already recognized back then. Today we understand it as an “eye of the beholder” problem. Looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

160 years of collecting and processing evidence has resolved a time span of 70 to 90 million years worth of biological adventurism. Geologically, it’s shockingly short. Biologically, not so much.

Why was the Cambrian radiation so exuberant? Short answer, Earth was ripe and Life was ready. There were no precedents. No competition. No rules. No constraints. Endless microbial mats on sea floors. Generations ticking away in geologic milliseconds.

When radical geophysical catastrophes has Life scrambling again, it returns to its ancient genetic toolkit. As the dust settles and survivors figure out what’s what, there were always moments of sudden “explosive” (geologically speaking) animal radiation events.


 

Read about any of Earth’s great extinction events, every one was followed by a period of dust settling. Then after geologic processes and time… thousands, hundreds of thousand of years, a thousand times a thousand years. Once the environment returned to a respectable biologically healthy equilibrium life took off in a geological speaking explosive radiation event’s. Time and time again. Remember Life had been actively preparing for that - that being to better use the resources available - Yes

(that’s my version of ID - something always drove biology/evolution on to improve, or survive when things got ugly, then back to improving, once the environment made it possible.)

But lets get back to thinking about those geologic numbers and the geologic time scale - BIOLOGY UNFOLDS ON OUR TIME SCALES. Days and seasons and parents and children and growing old and dying. Someone like Holmes really needs to think about that and allow it to soak it in,

Geology is Deep Time, biology does not deal in deep time, biology deals with today, and getting through as well as possible. Of course, just like we humans are the sum totally of all the days that came before us, not just in this life, but in all the generations before, so too it is with all of Earth’s creatures who’ve had their place in our Evolution.

You know this Sun, Earth, Moon is quite possibly the finest gem the Universe created - it’s a shame we can’t treat it with a little more appreciation, awareness, respect, so self-destructive we are. Why is that Holmes???

 

Oh I forgot to mention, environmental niches to fill for the first time.

 

excuse the typos

crickets

Here’s an example of scientists simply doing their thing and gathering more information that helps better explain what was happening. Might come across as a little boring to some, but its actually quite insightful. Basically it’s about the evidence of mineralogical changes, that happen to relate to biological changes. Fascinating really. Also it underscores that first we’re talking about lots of time - 25 million years of dynamic period, (though others argue that including all the Edicaran/Cambrian changes, it’s more like 70ish million. In any event, plenty of time for biology to do plenty of things, if the conditions were right and the resources were available.

 

 

The Ediacaran-Cambrian rise of biomineralisation: triggers, patterns and process

 

Palaeo cast - Published on Sep 26, 2017

By Wood, R.*, Zhuravlev, A., Zhu, M., and Ivantsov, A.

Recorded at the International Symposium on the Ediacaran-Cambrian Transition, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.


PS - you know the mammalian’s explosive radiation after the comet took like 5 million year. )

It’s not important what CC thinks (sorry CC, I know you get what I mean). What’s important is what conclusions the data points to.

I was sharing a video by someone who works in the field and doesn’t care what I think either. It’s about what the science is learning and it directly relates to your weird supposition the we need to find something smaller and more fundamental to find the answer to life’s origins. Which is most decided wrong as you would know, if you’d actually studied this as much as you like to believe you have.

What’s your point with ragging on me rather than discussing the evidence of experts? I’m unimpressed big guy.

Perhaps the point is that you dear holmes, dearly believe your own opinion. Your self-certainty is a matter of faith that you are the smartest guy in the room and that you’ve got nothing to learn from no body you disagree with. That is the way of Faith NOT the way of science or learning.

Oh yeah your the guy that doesn’t believe anything but what you want to believe. That is the way of Faith NOT the way of science or learning.

 

 

And still not a peep about what this ID of Holmes’ is - apparently he’s got no idea.

"And still not a peep about what this ID of Holmes’ is – apparently he’s got no idea.:

 

And not a peep from you about the dishonesty with climate change reports/stoties/articles in the corporate media

And not a peep from you about the dishonesty with climate change reports/stoties/articles in the corporate media
What's that got to do with the Cambrian???

Hell what’s it even asking?

Want a peep from me - why the hell not take a peek

https://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com


Any questions you silly whippersnapper, try composing an OP and thread yourself, I’ll be happy to join the discussion to try and answer any questions you may have.

Cheers Cc

Just saying hypocrite.

You say things - my little infant grandson says things too.

Neither of you are any good at explaining what your words are supposed to mean.

Actually that’s not true, the little guy does pretty communicating what he wants/needs without those words.

Your flaying doesn’t impress me.

I see you have been triggered

do you

does that mean anything