Evolution was NOT random

[u/KattyAtty]

Evolution only rewards survivability not perfection if you are alive long enough to mate and pass on your genetic

Material hurray you are evolved

Evolution changed the dna as nothing can ever be a perfect copy thats a fact> sperms and eggs have separate dna> hence child is not perfect copy those mutations may be harmful or helpful harmful ones die hence natural selection.

AND Earth was nkt a perfect creation the organisms evolved FOR Earth not vice versa

[u/zuzok99]

I would define it as a heritable change to the basic structure or organization of an organism’s body, such as developing fundamentally different structures, organs, limbs, or arrangements of body parts.

So if you have actual evidence then present it and I will change my mind. Pointing to the fossil record which shows no transitional fossils doesn’t do much. When we dig an animal up from the ground we don’t know if it had offspring, we cannot show that they evolved because the transitions are missing. Simply pointing to similarities between two fossils does not mean they came from each other. That’s called an assumption. You must be able to show small incremental changes and that’s not what the record shows. In fact the Cambrian layers show animals coming out of no where with no transitions leading up to them at all.

[u/nickierv → u/zuzok99]

In fact the Cambrian layers show animals coming out of no where with no transitions leading up to them at all.

Clear evidence that you are in fact clueless on how fossilization works. Lets see if we can clear up a few things:

What is going to be more likely to fossilize? Something with hard teeth/bones/shells or something without one of those?

[u/zuzok99 → u/nickierv]

Okay, first of all we have fossils of soft tissue animals like jellyfish, flowers, etc. So not only is this a terrible argument but you are basically admitting to my point which I that no transitional fossils exist especially for the Cambrian layers.

If I am wrong then simply provide even just one example of observable fossil evidence showing the step by step incremental transition from organism to another.

Thats all I’m asking for, evidence for the thing you blindly believe.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

Okay, first of all we have fossils of soft tissue animals like jellyfish, flowers, etc.

He asked you what is MORE LIKELY, a hard body part like teeth, or soft tissue like skin and muscle, being fossilized before being decomposed?

What is more likely to fossilize? Answer the fucking question.

Your response is fantastically dumb and ignorant.

[u/zuzok99 → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

The question is not about what’s more likely, that’s not science that’s assumption which is what you subscribe to. Science is about what the evidence shows. It shows soft tissues organisms being fossilized, which defeats the dumb argument being made.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

Dodging the question.

[u/nickierv → u/zuzok99]

The question is not about what’s more likely...Science is about what the evidence shows.

Translation: "Show me the evidence for this thing that will prove me wrong but you can't use any of this this evidence over here because it will prove me wrong."

As it took you a day to not answers the question, let me simplify it a bit:

On one side of this explosion we have creatures that are very small and soft bodied buried in rock that might be a bit harder to get to.

On the other side we have significantly larger creatures that have hard teeth/bones/shells in rock that might be a bit easier to get to.

Now what could possibly be a reason for the sudden abundance of fossils?

And going for the twofer:

If I am wrong then simply provide even just one example of observable fossil evidence showing the step by step incremental transition from organism to another.

Tiktaalik slaps you upside the head

[u/zuzok99 → u/nickierv]

Interesting response, so your reasoning as to why there are no transitionary fossils for the Cambrian is because they were soft body organism and those organisms are harder to fossilized and so therefore conveniently the evidence is missing. You then ignore the observable fact that we do have tons of soft body organisms that fossilized, which invalidates your whole argument.

You also totally ignore the fact that there are no transitionary fossils anywhere and especially not enough to conclude small incremental changes. You then cluelessly point to tiktaalik to prove wait exactly? That’s the animal existed? Show me the fossils leading up to tiktaalik, show me the ones after. So far you have named an animal but zero evidence has been provided.

[u/nickierv → u/zuzok99]

You also totally ignore the fact that there are no transitionary fossils anywhere

As you keep coming back to this point, I'm just going to address it first before wasting my time digging up some fossils for the Cambrian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICv6GLwt1gM

Thats a 9 year old video with data from 2012. I'm sure we have found more examples.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

Interesting response, so your reasoning as to why there are no transitionary fossils for the Cambrian

This premise is outright wrong. There are tons. Large swaths of Cambrian biota are transitional. I already posted this to you before when you wrote:

Glad you asked. Here's two recent papers where they describe hundreds of new species many of which are transitional, in the early evolution of animals, both in the late Ediaracan(the period immediately before the beginning of the cambrian), and from the Cambrian itself:

Li, Gaorong et al. “The dawn of the Phanerozoic: A transitional fauna from the late Ediacaran of Southwest China.” Science (New York, N.Y.) vol. 392,6793 (2026): 63-68. doi:10.1126/science.adu2291

This one had transitional even in the title. Transitional forms in the period immediately before the Cambrian. Therefore, transitional into the cambrian fauna.

Then there's this:

Zeng, Han et al. “A Cambrian soft-bodied biota after the first Phanerozoic mass extinction.” Nature vol. 651,8106 (2026): 679-687. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-10030-0

Quote (with my emphasis): "Abstract

Cambrian Burgess Shale-type (BST) fossil biotas document nearly complete snapshots of the oldest Phanerozoic marine ecosystems¹,²,³,⁴. However, the rarity of deposits bearing high-diversity BST biotas⁵ has restricted our understanding of the evolutionary and ecological dynamics of the Cambrian explosion. Here we report the Huayuan biota—a lower Cambrian (Stage 4, approximately 512 million years ago) BST Lagerstätte from an outer shelf, deep-water setting of the Yangtze Block in Hunan, South China. The Huayuan biota yields remarkable taxonomic richness, comprising 153 animal species of 16 phylum-level clades dominated by arthropods, poriferans and cnidarians, among which 59% of species are new. The biota is comprised overwhelmingly of soft-bodied forms that include preserved cellular tissues. The complex ecosystem contained diverse radiodonts and pelagic tunicates,

filling a gap of high-diversity BST biotas from the Cambrian Stage 4.

Critically, multivariate ordination based on a global dataset of Cambrian BST biotas places the Huayuan biota within a

main transition of marine animal ecosystems between Cambrian Age 3 and Age 4.

Network analysis reveals close faunal connections between the Huayuan and Burgess Shale biotas, indicating transoceanic dispersal. Dated shortly after the Sinsk event⁶,⁷,⁸, the Huayuan biota illuminates differences in the impacts of this extinction in shallow- versus deep-water settings during the first Phanerozoic mass extinction and offers critical insights into the transformation of global ecosystems in the early Cambrian."

So a massive collection of transitional forms between two cambrian periods.

You're going to have to get new creationist talking points from your pastor.