The Cambrian explosion is back on again and Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is doing well too

TR, some very good questions. Biological origins has been pinned to an incrementally modified C19 theory (it antedates general acceptance of genetic theory) in a C21 information age. The cracks have long been evident, but until things shatter irretrievably, the name of the game will be business as usual. KF PS: Randomness means in effect not correlated to or under control of a target configuration based function, in the context that accidents, molecular noise, radioactivity events etc are well known phenomena. kairosfocus

Never seen such rejection of evidence based now both on the lack of intermediates (sudden appearance and either stasis or extinction follow), is also backed up by genetic studies. AND while I am commenting, how the hell do traditional evolutionists push the ape cousin narrative, without explaining the HUGE difference in our Y chromosome, and having to add a trick of chromosome fusion (even though they don't know where the heck chromosomes even come from) - BUT my main consternation is that they can't begin to explain WHERE APES came from!!! The main evidence they rely on is that apes have a very similar morphology, and genetically we are not far apart. But we are also 50% similar to a banana. We are learning its not the CODE so much as it is how the CODE is expressed. I am a programmer by training, systems guy by trade, and for the life of me, considering the Cambrian Explosion (and all the other explosions we are now defining), from what we know about DNA, the immaterial encoded and decoded information, sequences that can be spliced, edited, turned on and off, read forward and backward in an overlapping fashion, the similarities of the CODE being the norm across the spectrum (i.e. bananas and humans share 50% of the genes), HOW THEY CANNOT SEE THIS IS OBJECT ORIENTED programing in action. You define a class of objects, each object can have many different variables that radically change the organism, but the CLASS (phyla/body plan) remains the same. In an age where physics is realizing that information is probably the key to our very existence, and yet they refuse to include conscious decision making which MUST be involved with altering or combining highly specified, purposeful information (If I change my program by changing a random bit here or there, it crashes, it does not improve. AND while I am on my soapbox, how do they know that a "mutation" which I believe is a poor choice of words that they use for genetic change of any kind, is random anyway? Knowing the very low odds of getting even two point mutations that are useful especially in two very different loci, would it not make more sense that this was a purposeful tweek - from all we have learned about how even trees seem to have agency, and have an amazing underground network of c02 and other mineral sharing, AND the hub trees preferring their own offspring, what is more likely, a copy mistake or a purposeful change - just because DNA may have a copy error or duplication, does not, in any way, prove that it is random.. Tom Robbins

Why am I not surprised? kairosfocus