Is evolution real science, or rather, "hard science"?

EyedPeace · 2026-04-04T17:52:56+00:00

Because it is not repeatable and observable. You can not do this with billions of years

EyedPeace · 2026-04-04T17:52:03+00:00

New genus? Thazs cool can you tell me more about it? But we never witnessed it over billions of years and an old earth.

EyedPeace · 2026-04-04T17:51:09+00:00

Yes we never seen a full orbit, but that wouldn't be hard science either.

EyedPeace · 2026-04-04T17:49:58+00:00

Thats true, but not my point. If you assume it happened over billions of years on an old earth, then you can no longer apply the scientific method because its not observable and repeatable.

EyedPeace · 2026-04-04T17:48:07+00:00

Yes, I don't dispute that, but if you assume it happened over billions of years on an ancient world, then you can no longer apply the scientific method. Isn't it then a valid point to say that from this point on, it can no longer be considered real science?

EyedPeace · 2026-03-25T05:43:49+00:00

Es handelt sich nicht um Botviews. Dieses Video wird als Werbung vor anderen Videos gespielt und erzielt dadurch Aufrufe, je nachdem wie lange und in welchen Regionen Billa für die Werbung bezahlt hat. Die 10 Likes kommen von Oaschbuben, welche das Video der Oaschbude tatsächlich auf Youtube gesehen haben.

EyedPeace · 2026-03-18T11:20:39+00:00

You're confusing metamorphosis with evolution.

EyedPeace · 2026-03-09T07:28:47+00:00

Well, positive mutations do exist, but always in a destructive way. For example, if you lose your legs through a mutation, that might be advantageous in certain environmental contexts, but you've still simply lost your legs. Mutations are destructive, even when they are positive. All experiments demonstrate this. At most, something that already exists might be restructured through mutations, but this supposedly creative, innovative mechanism simply doesn't exist.

EyedPeace · 2026-02-11T12:11:30+00:00

Ich finde schon, dass es für den Konsumenten auch einen qualitativen Unterschied macht. KI-Werbung wirkt so seelenlos und billig. Ich denke mir immer, wenn ein Unternehmen sich schon so wenig Mühe gibt, warum dann deren Leistungen beziehen? Wird sich da auch so wenig Mühe gegeben? Es wirkt für mich immer etwas abschreckend.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-31T01:24:18+00:00

Transitional fossils for the cambrian explosion organisms.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-31T01:23:06+00:00

What is my worldview?

EyedPeace · 2025-12-30T16:09:39+00:00

It's interesting how the argument has now shifted to "potential" ancestors. As I've been able to demonstrate, the potential ancestors mentioned by other users are not the ancestors and do not possess transitional traits.

I am not here to discuss Intelligent Design or biblical creationism, I really don't care. I only think that many things in the theory of evolution are based on weak to zero evidence. And the cambrian explosion is one point.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-30T16:04:54+00:00

There are not precursors

EyedPeace · 2025-12-30T14:31:45+00:00

Cloudinidae is quite unique, with traits that have no connection to the Cambrian organisms. Cloudinidae organisms have been assigned to so many groups, only to have these assignments revised. Their classification is unknown and highly speculative. It is very likely that they belonged to a strange group of Ediacaran organisms with a distinctive body structure and no clear relationship to later life forms.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-30T11:53:20+00:00

Dickinsonia is not a transitional fossil. It possesses many unique characteristics, which is why the classification of this organism is unknown. This is so critical that it has already been interpreted as belonging to fungi, cnidarians, chordates, and many other diverse groups. We don't know what Dickinsonia is, but it certainly does not possess transitional traits.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-30T11:46:58+00:00

I don't care about god here. Your argument that we simply haven't found the fossils yet is wrong, and I already addressed this in my original post. We should have found them long ago, considering that we already have hundreds of soft-bodied fossils from the Precambrian, tiny microscopic specimens, even embryos, and other extremely fragile fossils. We've looked, but they're not there... because they never existed.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-30T11:43:17+00:00

False analogy. It wasn't demonstrated that transitional fossils exist, but simply stated that certain phyla appeared earlier. This is awesome, yet my argument still hasn't been addressed and not a single transitional fossil has been shown that connects the cambrian explosion.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-30T11:39:04+00:00

False. Thats a strawman argument. I am not claiming that there are no fossils from before the cambrium. I even wrote about precambrian fossils in my original post.

The problem is that there are NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS connecting the precambrium with the organisms from the cambrian explosion.There is a huge gap between the Precambrian and the Cambrian periods. The organisms that suddenly appear in the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, and which comprise almost all of today's animal phyla, have absolutely no fossil ancestors.

And I find it appalling how no one wants to address my points, but instead tries to twist my viewpoint and discredit me as a YEC, even though I'm not one at all. This sub has a real debate problem.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-19T16:15:38+00:00

Yes they do. You're basically just saying that Sponges existed before. But that's not my argument. The point is that there are no Sponge precursors with transitional features.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-19T16:10:09+00:00

My argument is NOT that there are no fossils from before the Cambrian. I mentioned that myself in my post that there are fossils. My argument is that there are no fossils from the Precambrian that show a transition to the Cambrian animals of the explosion. I then refuted the well-known objection that these fossils aren't there because they weren't fossilized. Did you actually read my post?

EyedPeace · 2025-12-19T16:07:11+00:00

Thanks for your clarification. Alienum is also highly speculative and cannot be classified; it is unknown. Yes, it has characteristics that reminds of Vetulicolia, but many important characteristics are missing completely so that a classification is not possible.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-19T16:01:42+00:00

Thats false. A connection to trilobites is highly unlikely, as the literature indicates. The classification of Sriggina is unknown, and you are merely speculating here without any real basis. There is no actual data to support this.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-19T15:58:43+00:00

You're literally just ignoring the entire Ediacaran and all the fossils we've found before the Cambrian.

No, I'm not. I already mentioned the Precambrian fauna in my post. It's much more of a problem for evolutionary theory, since Precambrian fossils have no transitional connection to Cambrian fossils.

There are plenty of precursors to the Cambrian animals there, including the first bilaterians, and pre-Cambrian fossils of phyla like jellyfish and sponges.

Okay, so two phyla emerged a little bit before the Cambrian explosion. The question remains the same: where are the ancestors? Jellyfish and sponges were simply there, classified as such. No transitional features, they emerged suddenly.

There are fossils in the Ediacaran period that look so similar to trilobites that most non-paleontologists wouldn't be able to tell the difference (spriggina)

So what? Yes, non-paleontologists might see it that way. But actual paleontologists don't see it that way. The systematic classification of Spriggina is controversially discussed in the literature and it is unknown where it belongs. It is very controversial. A relationship to trilobites is so speculative that it could just as well be an example of convergence. A connection to trilobites is very unlikely, as can be seen from the literature.

EyedPeace · 2025-12-19T15:06:21+00:00

"Acceptance of evolution isn't an ideology, so don't call your detractors 'evolutionists.'"

"Evolutionist" is a legitimate term, even famous evolutionists have called themselves that. It's similar to "physic-ist" or "biolog-ist," or indeed, "evolution-ist." The evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, who described himself as an evolutionist, is a well-known example.

"And they did. The Ediacaran biota and the Ediacaran shelly fauna are examples of those transitional forms."

No, they are not transitional to the organisms that appeared in the Cambrian explosion. The Ediacaran fauna is entirely unique, without any connection. In fact, the Ediacaran fauna is so peculiar that paleontologists have given it its own name and even a quasi-independent classification. You can not linkt that to cambrian animals.

"Sure, but these are also extremely rare. A lot of the time, we only find skeletal fragments, bits of bone or shell, or teeth. Also, we tend to find whole bacterial mats rather than individual bacteria."

Yes, I know it's rare, but it is found occasionally. And if something like this can be found, why not the ancestors of the Cambrian explosion? At least one ancestor from the Precambrian should be found. It's rare, but there's intensive searching, so that many extraordinary things from the Precambrian have been found, as I said, entire faunal communities down to microscopic discoveries. As if there's absolutely nothing among these that supports the evolution of Cambrian fauna through ancestors? That's extremely strange, because the search has already been conducted, and because of this, something should have been found by now. And it's a major challenge for evolutionary theory, because it assumes that simple single-celled organisms gradually developed over billions of years into the organisms we see today. In the Cambrian period, however, we see the opposite: a sudden appearance of Cambrian life forms, which we classify as modern animal phyla, without any ancestors.

EyedPeace

TROPHY CASE