Re: oecies just appear in the strata asz

Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Fri, 3 May 2024 21:47:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 <snip>
 

The evidence shows that almost all modern phyla appeared or was placed
on the planet during the Cambrian. I know of no scientific evidence
observed in the fossil record demonstrating the evolution these phylum
during the early Cambrian or the pre Cambrian. The modern phyla existed
and no third alternative is offered. If a designer was involved in the
creation of the Cambrian biota, there
is no reason to suppose it could not be involved at different times

 And no reason to suppose anything else about the Designer's
activities, from a scientific perspective.
 

with
organisms at the level at a  family (kinds) classifications of living
organisms that fit within the earlier phylum category.
Each kind reproducing after it's own kind.

 >
I've recently arrived to the conclusion, based upon the fact that the origin of the massive amounts of highly complex genetic information that was infused into the Genetic code just didn't appear from nowhere. There had to be a source. On this planet the only source of complex information is from a mind.  The information in genetic codes must have come from the mind of a deity, which I've come to believe is God.
I believe that the presence of such highly complex information can be seen as evidence of a God. You can believe or disbelieve, but you can only disbelieve, you cannot falsify the existence of this Being. Furthermore, the fact that virtually all life on this planet is based on the same genetic code implies a common design. Of course, evolution advocates claim this is evidence of descent from a common ancestor. But as to the origin of this information, these evolutionist do not have any direct evidence demonstrating how  genetic information came into existence. Also there is the question as to the origin of the DNA.
It's asserted that RNA must have come first because RNA possesses the capacity to copy. And there is contraversy. The origin of the RNA itself is unknown. And this doesn't touch the cosmological constants and the laws of physics or natural law; which supposedly can be explained by applying natural processes and actions.

That's almost a direct quote from the Bible. 

 >
It's saying, in different words almost exactly the same concept as the scientific definition of a species. Do you know the most common definition species?
"A species is a group of organisms that share a genetic heritage, are able to interbreed, and to create offspring that are also fertile. Different species are separated from each other by reproductive barriers...mountain ranges... genetic barriers that do not allow for reproduction between the two populations."
https://biologydictionary.net/species/
 >
"A species (pl.: species) is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Taxonomy_and_naming
But I guess you've given

up all pretense of not basing your beliefs on religion.

 >
No, I never did base my beliefs on religion, quite the contrary it's what I've learned from science that causes me to re-think religious ideas.

 

  Now this is where the evidence seems to show a restricted or guided
form of evolution, all of which began and descended from these modern
phyla. But I do not believe a decedent of a given phylum is ever
separated from it's original phylum within which it evolved, and that
first appeared during the Cambrian.

 Would gene duplication lead to there being more information in the
genome, in your view?
 

Using my own logic and reasoning it seems that I've arrived at a
definitive form of evolution via a back door!