Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Cambrian Explosion

Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:13:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

Well, I don't know because I for one only know of the Cambrian explosion outlined by science, rather than the Kent hovind talk radio version that you appear to be talking about.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:37:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:13:05 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

Well, I don't know because I for one only know of the Cambrian explosion outlined by science, rather than the Kent hovind talk radio version that you appear to be talking about.

Your strawtheist aside, the Cambrian Explosion was a time at which a huge amount of life was brought into creation from a very small amount of life.

Where did it come from and how did so much life come from so little?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:30:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:37:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:13:05 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

Well, I don't know because I for one only know of the Cambrian explosion outlined by science, rather than the Kent hovind talk radio version that you appear to be talking about.

Your strawtheist aside, the Cambrian Explosion was a time at which a huge amount of life was brought into creation from a very small amount of life.

Where did it come from and how did so much life come from so little?

If you can justify "99% of life", which is simply false, I will concede my straw man. Or you can rephrase Cambrian explosion to mean what it actually means and I will be happy to talk.

Until that time, I will presume that your incorrect, straw man statement, typical of creationists and their associates indicates that you are not actually interested in the answer.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 2:43:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

OK first what do you consider an explosion? the Cambrian "explosion" took about 40 to 80 million years. Either way that's a hell of a small explosion.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 5:30:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, so I'm going to bite. I really shouldn't, but I'm a scientist:

1.) The Cambrian Explosion did not generate 99% of life, not even close. What it is, is a place where the evolution of most "fundamental" body plans started being significantly recorded in the fossile record. There is evidence of those body plans evolving before; and the Cambrian explosion did not generate starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals and in fact the majority of modern fauna and groups. It did, however, establish the fundamentals of those; the root of the tree.

2.) It wasn't an "Explosion", as mentioned it occurred over millions and millions of years. Estimated rates of evolution are 5x faster than they are to today (either because of more mutations, or higher selective pressure).This is not really unprecedented; as after mass extinctions, for example, there is a burst of adaptive radiation. There are numerous, reasonable and well understood mechanisms for this: There is far more selective pressure that can guide adaptations towards an ecological niche, if there is no existing competition for that niche (because animals do not exist to already hold that niche, or the ones that were are all dead).

3.) There are several possible explanations for why more fauna appears in the Cambrian than prior that do not involve a relative explosion: For example the evolution of hard bodies and skeletons. Soft bodies are very hard to fossilise whereas skeletons are not. Such examples do not eliminate the explosion, but provide a selection bias in the findings (thus reducing the impact of the explosion part of the explosion).

4.) The fundamental problem with the cambrian is not the rate of evolution; or how many body plans evolved in that era; it is simply and solely that we don't know what changed. What environmental or biological change that caused the increased rate: We know the increased rates can and have occured; and have evidence that supports them; just not exactly what it was in this example.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 5:32:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

The first person to discuss this event as a possible problem for evolutionary theory was the naturalist Charles Darwin. He gave a detailed account of how it was a problem in his book 'The origin of species'. The majority of objections to evolution were first mentioned in his book. Why would someone raise objections to their own theory? I would say it was because he wished to be honest and was a man of integrity.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 5:39:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

There are a ton of theories and it was probably a combination of many of them resulted in a phase change, a threshold was crossed and the rate of change exploded.

How do un-naturalists explain it?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:03:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 5:39:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

There are a ton of theories and it was probably a combination of many of them resulted in a phase change, a threshold was crossed and the rate of change exploded.

How do un-naturalists explain it?

Genesis 5:1.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:20:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 6:03:20 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:39:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

There are a ton of theories and it was probably a combination of many of them resulted in a phase change, a threshold was crossed and the rate of change exploded.

How do un-naturalists explain it?

Genesis 5:1.

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him"

Sorry, please; how does this explain a significant increase in the diversity of life over 40million years 500+millions years ago?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:56:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
More interesting is how does a creationist explain the Cambrian Explosion? It completely goes against the Biblical account of creation.

So which is correct? Is the Biblical account of creation accurate and the evidence we find of the Cambrian explosion invalid or did the Cambrian explosion happen and the Biblical account of creation is false?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 8:54:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
God
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 2:14:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:37:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:13:05 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

Well, I don't know because I for one only know of the Cambrian explosion outlined by science, rather than the Kent hovind talk radio version that you appear to be talking about.

Your strawtheist aside, the Cambrian Explosion was a time at which a huge amount of life was brought into creation from a very small amount of life.

Where did it come from and how did so much life come from so little?

They were horny little bastards. Do you need the birds and the bees talk?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Fractals
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:38:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

OK. A few errors here. The Cambrian 'explosion' documents the rise of the appearance in the fossil record, this is not the same as saying species themselves suddenly arose. The problem with saying that species themselves rapidly diversified at this time is that the genomics simply doesn't agree. Molecular phylogeny shows that chordates diverged from invertebrates prior ~one hundred million years before their Cambrian fossils.

http://www.sciencemag.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 5:23:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 6:03:20 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:39:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

There are a ton of theories and it was probably a combination of many of them resulted in a phase change, a threshold was crossed and the rate of change exploded.

How do un-naturalists explain it?

Genesis 5:1.

You think man existed in the Cambrian? OK, well that certainly qualifies as an un-natural explanation.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 8:39:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

Hello, I agree wit you

How can lif com from randim mutation? Ther is noting that naturally make negativ mutation less likly to surviv and mak ofspring, or make postive mutation more likly to suirviva,l and make ofspring. Natural slection is not exist. Saying that I strawman evilution/misrepresent it is fail because people who support evilution is shills creted by satan.

Evilution is evil lie trying to destroy Amurica. It is maded up by satanist communist nazi athiest muslim terroris babby-eating libral Charles Darwin. Evilution is false becus it just a theory! Evilution is lie and evolutionst argument are fail because all of the supposed "observed speciation events", "transitional fossils" and "evidence" are made up by evil scientists who like to eat babies.

Here's the prof:

P1. Darwin said "hi" to others when he meeting someone else.
P2. Adolf Hitler did the same.
P3. Hitler was an evil person.
C. Darwin was evil and evilution is a lie.

All 1000000000 of those transitional fossils are lie! My sources are: The NY Times, MSNBC, FOX News, ETC ETC! So reliable, I didn't even put the exact link to the articles! Wy? Becuz crediblity, virifybility, evidens, reason, and logick are evil concept maded up by evil liberil athiest gay straiht satanist shill disinform agent athiest.

Have you ever seen seeds in bananas? That is because bananas are intelligently designed to be easily eaten! Some people say wild bananas have big seeds and they were cultivated and breeded so that domesticated bananas have no seeds, but they are shills who are working for the NSA, FBI, CIA, NBA, NHL, KFC, and so on! They are evil liberal baby eaters who want to ban guns and kill fetuses!

Evilution says that whales came out of the sea and turned into cows! It is actually what evilution said because VenomFangX is totally a reliable source.

If evilution is true, when why are there still apes arond? Evilution does not sayanything aboutcommon ancestry, so it must say that all apes turned into people magically!

Y DONT LIFE COMM OUT OF PENUT BUTER?

Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.!!!!!!1!!

Satan has many forms, one of which is to turn into a bearded racist nazi communist muslim athiest Charles Darwin and spread lies to destroy America and promote secularism. Evilution is a evil lie that is just a theory. It impossible that somehow rock can turn into a planet, and then life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, then bacteria suddenly evilving into people, and cats giving birth to catfishes after eating fish. It evil lie that spred by evil scientist and biolog techer! The mountain of evidence for evilution does not exist, because I don't bother to read th 10000 study report that say evilution true because there too long. Some people sau dat evilution is not what I say it is and that I use strawman, which is clearly lie becus anyone beliv evilution is a evil satan worshipper. Darwin himseelf has said that evilution is absurd to the highest degree, which is totally not quote mined adn put into creationist books. There are different types of evilution:

Micor-evilution:Da theery dat cat give birt to cafish!
Macor-eviltion:Da theery dat le bakteria com frumm le dirt in le ocean.
Stellar evilution:Da theery dat stars can form out of nebula, all 1000000000 of the so-called stellar evilution caught by telescope are evil lie by satan worship scientists that worship scientism.
Matter evilution: so-called heavier matter that form from hydrogen, which is bull because stars like the sun don't have nuclear fusion in core turning hydrogen to helum, instead it runs from power of cow feces!

All the above are lie made by evil liberal athiest scientist that hate the truth of cretion!!!!!!!1!!!

THEsE Are All evidence evilution should not be taught in school

This is perfect proof that evilution evil lie: It is trying to make children evil.

Look at this: Evilution was legalize in school recenly, righ? Well, teaching evilution made people commit more crime every time! Look, the crim rates steadily raising!

http://en.wikipedia.org..................

Als, teching evilution mak natural disaster mor comon! Evilution is cause iof Katrina, Irene, Sandy, etc. because I say so and corelation alway equal causation when I say it.

Evilution not true becuz it violatez the lawz of fysicz! Entropy of closed system only increase. Earth is closed system becuz sun no shine any energy to earth, nothing can enter earth becuz there a invisible wall, and nothing can leav eath!!!!!!11! Entropy of earth can only increse, even tho it is open system, and decrasing entopy in earth by incrasing entropy out of earth is impossible even tho non of physic say it is impossible.

Banana are evidence dat evilution false evil lie. If banana evolved, it will hav seed. (Even tho wild banana hav seed, domesticated banana don't despite people cultivating it, domesticated banana not having seed is evidnce for evilution lie.

Evilution is supported by Obama, who is liberal that want destruction of America. Obama is satan because well I pulld it out of my A**. Obama want America become socialism. ObamaCar will kill everone! My frend Bob frm Canda, which ahs socilist medcare, sas that in Canad, the hospitl have 5 horu wait, and peple install death panal to chose wether or not grama dies. it is totally also not pulled out of my A**, and bob is claely real person I did not made up. If america socialst medcar, then ob,ama anticris hitler evil comunits

Caambrin exploshun evidence evilution false becuz despite fact that cambrin exploshun tak up namy million year, that transitional fossil to cambrin explosion exist, and similar lif to dose appar in cambrin explosion exist befor that, it is pruf that evil liberal babby killing athiest muslim scientist are destroy america because all evidence against wat I saying are fail.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 7:16:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 8:39:24 PM, jh1234l wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

Hello, I agree wit you

How can lif com from randim mutation? Ther is noting that naturally make negativ mutation less likly to surviv and mak ofspring, or make postive mutation more likly to suirviva,l and make ofspring. Natural slection is not exist. Saying that I strawman evilution/misrepresent it is fail because people who support evilution is shills creted by satan.

Evilution is evil lie trying to destroy Amurica. It is maded up by satanist communist nazi athiest muslim terroris babby-eating libral Charles Darwin. Evilution is false becus it just a theory! Evilution is lie and evolutionst argument are fail because all of the supposed "observed speciation events", "transitional fossils" and "evidence" are made up by evil scientists who like to eat babies.

Here's the prof:

P1. Darwin said "hi" to others when he meeting someone else.
P2. Adolf Hitler did the same.
P3. Hitler was an evil person.
C. Darwin was evil and evilution is a lie.

All 1000000000 of those transitional fossils are lie! My sources are: The NY Times, MSNBC, FOX News, ETC ETC! So reliable, I didn't even put the exact link to the articles! Wy? Becuz crediblity, virifybility, evidens, reason, and logick are evil concept maded up by evil liberil athiest gay straiht satanist shill disinform agent athiest.

Have you ever seen seeds in bananas? That is because bananas are intelligently designed to be easily eaten! Some people say wild bananas have big seeds and they were cultivated and breeded so that domesticated bananas have no seeds, but they are shills who are working for the NSA, FBI, CIA, NBA, NHL, KFC, and so on! They are evil liberal baby eaters who want to ban guns and kill fetuses!

Evilution says that whales came out of the sea and turned into cows! It is actually what evilution said because VenomFangX is totally a reliable source.

If evilution is true, when why are there still apes arond? Evilution does not sayanything aboutcommon ancestry, so it must say that all apes turned into people magically!

Y DONT LIFE COMM OUT OF PENUT BUTER?

Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.!!!!!!1!!

Satan has many forms, one of which is to turn into a bearded racist nazi communist muslim athiest Charles Darwin and spread lies to destroy America and promote secularism. Evilution is a evil lie that is just a theory. It impossible that somehow rock can turn into a planet, and then life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, then bacteria suddenly evilving into people, and cats giving birth to catfishes after eating fish. It evil lie that spred by evil scientist and biolog techer! The mountain of evidence for evilution does not exist, because I don't bother to read th 10000 study report that say evilution true because there too long. Some people sau dat evilution is not what I say it is and that I use strawman, which is clearly lie becus anyone beliv evilution is a evil satan worshipper. Darwin himseelf has said that evilution is absurd to the highest degree, which is totally not quote mined adn put into creationist books. There are different types of evilution:

Micor-evilution:Da theery dat cat give birt to cafish!
Macor-eviltion:Da theery dat le bakteria com frumm le dirt in le ocean.
Stellar evilution:Da theery dat stars can form out of nebula, all 1000000000 of the so-called stellar evilution caught by telescope are evil lie by satan worship scientists that worship scientism.
Matter evilution: so-called heavier matter that form from hydrogen, which is bull because stars like the sun don't have nuclear fusion in core turning hydrogen to helum, instead it runs from power of cow feces!

All the above are lie made by evil liberal athiest scientist that hate the truth of cretion!!!!!!!1!!!

THEsE Are All evidence evilution should not be taught in school

This is perfect proof that evilution evil lie: It is trying to make children evil.

Look at this: Evilution was legalize in school recenly, righ? Well, teaching evilution made people commit more crime every time! Look, the crim rates steadily raising!

http://en.wikipedia.org..................

Als, teching evilution mak natural disaster mor comon! Evilution is cause iof Katrina, Irene, Sandy, etc. because I say so and corelation alway equal causation when I say it.

Evilution not true becuz it violatez the lawz of fysicz! Entropy of closed system only increase. Earth is closed system becuz sun no shine any energy to earth, nothing can enter earth becuz there a invisible wall, and nothing can leav eath!!!!!!11! Entropy of earth can only increse, even tho it is open system, and decrasing entopy in earth by incrasing entropy out of earth is impossible even tho non of physic say it is impossible.

Banana are evidence dat evilution false evil lie. If banana evolved, it will hav seed. (Even tho wild banana hav seed, domesticated banana don't despite people cultivating it, domesticated banana not having seed is evidnce for evilution lie.

Evilution is supported by Obama, who is liberal that want destruction of America. Obama is satan because well I pulld it out of my A**. Obama want America become socialism. ObamaCar will kill everone! My frend Bob frm Canda, which ahs socilist medcare, sas that in Canad, the hospitl have 5 horu wait, and peple install death panal to chose wether or not grama dies. it is totally also not pulled out of my A**, and bob is claely real person I did not made up. If america socialst medcar, then ob,ama anticris hitler evil comunits

Caambrin exploshun evidence evilution false becuz despite fact that cambrin exploshun tak up namy million year, that transitional fossil to cambrin explosion exist, and similar lif to dose appar in cambrin explosion exist befor that, it is pruf that evil liberal babby killing athiest muslim scientist are destroy america because all evidence against wat I saying are fail.

definitely a troll. I've seen this terribly worded, grammatically incorrect comments 3 times already in other forums.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 7:19:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

A change in ocean chemistry that allowed the widespread formation of shells?
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 7:57:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 7:16:01 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/9/2014 8:39:24 PM, jh1234l wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

Hello, I agree wit you

How can lif com from randim mutation? Ther is noting that naturally make negativ mutation less likly to surviv and mak ofspring, or make postive mutation more likly to suirviva,l and make ofspring. Natural slection is not exist. Saying that I strawman evilution/misrepresent it is fail because people who support evilution is shills creted by satan.

Evilution is evil lie trying to destroy Amurica. It is maded up by satanist communist nazi athiest muslim terroris babby-eating libral Charles Darwin. Evilution is false becus it just a theory! Evilution is lie and evolutionst argument are fail because all of the supposed "observed speciation events", "transitional fossils" and "evidence" are made up by evil scientists who like to eat babies.

Here's the prof:

P1. Darwin said "hi" to others when he meeting someone else.
P2. Adolf Hitler did the same.
P3. Hitler was an evil person.
C. Darwin was evil and evilution is a lie.

All 1000000000 of those transitional fossils are lie! My sources are: The NY Times, MSNBC, FOX News, ETC ETC! So reliable, I didn't even put the exact link to the articles! Wy? Becuz crediblity, virifybility, evidens, reason, and logick are evil concept maded up by evil liberil athiest gay straiht satanist shill disinform agent athiest.

Have you ever seen seeds in bananas? That is because bananas are intelligently designed to be easily eaten! Some people say wild bananas have big seeds and they were cultivated and breeded so that domesticated bananas have no seeds, but they are shills who are working for the NSA, FBI, CIA, NBA, NHL, KFC, and so on! They are evil liberal baby eaters who want to ban guns and kill fetuses!

Evilution says that whales came out of the sea and turned into cows! It is actually what evilution said because VenomFangX is totally a reliable source.

If evilution is true, when why are there still apes arond? Evilution does not sayanything aboutcommon ancestry, so it must say that all apes turned into people magically!

Y DONT LIFE COMM OUT OF PENUT BUTER?

Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.!!!!!!1!!

Satan has many forms, one of which is to turn into a bearded racist nazi communist muslim athiest Charles Darwin and spread lies to destroy America and promote secularism. Evilution is a evil lie that is just a theory. It impossible that somehow rock can turn into a planet, and then life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, then bacteria suddenly evilving into people, and cats giving birth to catfishes after eating fish. It evil lie that spred by evil scientist and biolog techer! The mountain of evidence for evilution does not exist, because I don't bother to read th 10000 study report that say evilution true because there too long. Some people sau dat evilution is not what I say it is and that I use strawman, which is clearly lie becus anyone beliv evilution is a evil satan worshipper. Darwin himseelf has said that evilution is absurd to the highest degree, which is totally not quote mined adn put into creationist books. There are different types of evilution:

Micor-evilution:Da theery dat cat give birt to cafish!
Macor-eviltion:Da theery dat le bakteria com frumm le dirt in le ocean.
Stellar evilution:Da theery dat stars can form out of nebula, all 1000000000 of the so-called stellar evilution caught by telescope are evil lie by satan worship scientists that worship scientism.
Matter evilution: so-called heavier matter that form from hydrogen, which is bull because stars like the sun don't have nuclear fusion in core turning hydrogen to helum, instead it runs from power of cow feces!

All the above are lie made by evil liberal athiest scientist that hate the truth of cretion!!!!!!!1!!!

THEsE Are All evidence evilution should not be taught in school

This is perfect proof that evilution evil lie: It is trying to make children evil.

Look at this: Evilution was legalize in school recenly, righ? Well, teaching evilution made people commit more crime every time! Look, the crim rates steadily raising!

http://en.wikipedia.org..................

Als, teching evilution mak natural disaster mor comon! Evilution is cause iof Katrina, Irene, Sandy, etc. because I say so and corelation alway equal causation when I say it.

Evilution not true becuz it violatez the lawz of fysicz! Entropy of closed system only increase. Earth is closed system becuz sun no shine any energy to earth, nothing can enter earth becuz there a invisible wall, and nothing can leav eath!!!!!!11! Entropy of earth can only increse, even tho it is open system, and decrasing entopy in earth by incrasing entropy out of earth is impossible even tho non of physic say it is impossible.

Banana are evidence dat evilution false evil lie. If banana evolved, it will hav seed. (Even tho wild banana hav seed, domesticated banana don't despite people cultivating it, domesticated banana not having seed is evidnce for evilution lie.

Evilution is supported by Obama, who is liberal that want destruction of America. Obama is satan because well I pulld it out of my A**. Obama want America become socialism. ObamaCar will kill everone! My frend Bob frm Canda, which ahs socilist medcare, sas that in Canad, the hospitl have 5 horu wait, and peple install death panal to chose wether or not grama dies. it is totally also not pulled out of my A**, and bob is claely real person I did not made up. If america socialst medcar, then ob,ama anticris hitler evil comunits

Caambrin exploshun evidence evilution false becuz despite fact that cambrin exploshun tak up namy million year, that transitional fossil to cambrin explosion exist, and similar lif to dose appar in cambrin explosion exist befor that, it is pruf that evil liberal babby killing athiest muslim scientist are destroy america because all evidence against wat I saying are fail.

definitely a troll. I've seen this terribly worded, grammatically incorrect comments 3 times already in other forums.

I thought it a rather good ironic parody of the major themes in anti-evolution arguments. Unfortunately anti-evolutionists are not moved by being parodied. But then they are not moved by logic or evidence either.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 8:42:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:38:51 PM, Fractals wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:41:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How do naturalists explain the Cambrian Explosion in which 99% of life seemed to spontaneously arise without an apparent cause?

OK. A few errors here. The Cambrian 'explosion' documents the rise of the appearance in the fossil record, this is not the same as saying species themselves suddenly arose.

yeah, it's always hard to get at what the actual data is when you're talking about evolution. So, 'the cambrian explosion' is certain formations of fossil, is what it is. There's no rising or appearing in the data, just rocks. Helps to remind oneself of that once in a while, because the narrative tends to take on the status of data over time, and it's not, it's narrative.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 8:45:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 7:57:04 AM, chui wrote:
...

... Unfortunately anti-evolutionists are not moved by being parodied. But then they are not moved by logic or evidence either.

Yeah, and I'm pretty suspicious of any alleged science that must be buttressed with CONSTANT ad-hominem. Why not let the data speak for itself, eh, if you've got the overwhelming evidence your mentors tell you is there?
This space for rent.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 9:42:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 8:45:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/14/2014 7:57:04 AM, chui wrote:
...

... Unfortunately anti-evolutionists are not moved by being parodied. But then they are not moved by logic or evidence either.

Yeah, and I'm pretty suspicious of any alleged science that must be buttressed with CONSTANT ad-hominem. Why not let the data speak for itself, eh, if you've got the overwhelming evidence your mentors tell you is there?

I would not agree that parody is an ad-hominem attack. However implying that I am a mouth piece that can only repeat what my mentors say is an ad-hominem.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 10:32:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 9:42:06 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:45:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/14/2014 7:57:04 AM, chui wrote:
...

... Unfortunately anti-evolutionists are not moved by being parodied. But then they are not moved by logic or evidence either.

Yeah, and I'm pretty suspicious of any alleged science that must be buttressed with CONSTANT ad-hominem. Why not let the data speak for itself, eh, if you've got the overwhelming evidence your mentors tell you is there?

I would not agree that parody is an ad-hominem attack. However implying that I am a mouth piece that can only repeat what my mentors say is an ad-hominem.

Heh, good for you. Now me and you are 2 of the about 17 people on the planet who understand what an ad-hominem actually is :-)
This space for rent.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 12:39:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 11/25/2013 5:30:34 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, so I'm going to bite. I really shouldn't, but I'm a scientist:

1.) The Cambrian Explosion did not generate 99% of life, not even close. What it is, is a place where the evolution of most "fundamental" body plans started being significantly recorded in the fossile record. There is evidence of those body plans evolving before; and the Cambrian explosion did not generate starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals and in fact the majority of modern fauna and groups. It did, however, establish the fundamentals of those; the root of the tree.

The fossil record indicates that around 28 of the 42 known animal phyla arose during the cambrian explosion, that's about 67% - admittedly less than 99% but I'd say it was close.


2.) It wasn't an "Explosion", as mentioned it occurred over millions and millions of years. Estimated rates of evolution are 5x faster than they are to today (either because of more mutations, or higher selective pressure).This is not really unprecedented; as after mass extinctions, for example, there is a burst of adaptive radiation. There are numerous, reasonable and well understood mechanisms for this: There is far more selective pressure that can guide adaptations towards an ecological niche, if there is no existing competition for that niche (because animals do not exist to already hold that niche, or the ones that were are all dead).


The Cambrian explosion can be broken down into stages, the two most dramatic stages together took around 6 million years. The Atdabanian stage perhaps 2.5 MY and the Botomian stage perhaps 3.5 MY. This period encapsulates the bulk of the diversification, see: http://www.evolutionnews.org...

(Taken from Samuel A. Bowring, John P. Grotzinger, Clark E. Isachsen, Andrew H. Knoll, Shane M. Pelechaty, Peter Kolosov, "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," Science, Vol. 261 (September 3, 1993)).

Furthermore it is universally referred to as an "explosion" in the scientific literature so I don't see any basis for you objecting when the OP refers to it in this manner.

3.) There are several possible explanations for why more fauna appears in the Cambrian than prior that do not involve a relative explosion: For example the evolution of hard bodies and skeletons. Soft bodies are very hard to fossilise whereas skeletons are not. Such examples do not eliminate the explosion, but provide a selection bias in the findings (thus reducing the impact of the explosion part of the explosion).

This is tired and had you done a little more homework you'd realize that this won't help you. In many parts of the earth where Cambrian fossils are found it also found that soft bodied organisms - like amoeba - are in fact fossilized superbly in strata beneath the Cambrian fossils. So the apparent absence of transitional fossils seems to be an actual historical absence.

I'd like to ask you on what grounds do you base your belief that such ancestors existed?

4.) The fundamental problem with the cambrian is not the rate of evolution; or how many body plans evolved in that era; it is simply and solely that we don't know what changed. What environmental or biological change that caused the increased rate: We know the increased rates can and have occured; and have evidence that supports them; just not exactly what it was in this example.

Actually the fundamental problem - to evolutionists - is that the supposed ancestors for a huge array of 28 very distinct phyla are not there, no trace, there is no evidence at all anywhere we find these fossils, that they actually evolved. If they evolved they must have had a rather non-trivial ancestral tree this is unavoidable if evolution be the cause.

Sadly for the evolutionist there's no evidence at all that such ancestors ever existed despite conditions for fossilization often being superb - as you'll discover if you bother to investigate this mystery with an open mind.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 1:20:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:39:38 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:30:34 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, so I'm going to bite. I really shouldn't, but I'm a scientist:

1.) The Cambrian Explosion did not generate 99% of life, not even close. What it is, is a place where the evolution of most "fundamental" body plans started being significantly recorded in the fossile record. There is evidence of those body plans evolving before; and the Cambrian explosion did not generate starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals and in fact the majority of modern fauna and groups. It did, however, establish the fundamentals of those; the root of the tree.

The fossil record indicates that around 28 of the 42 known animal phyla arose during the cambrian explosion, that's about 67% - admittedly less than 99% but I'd say it was close.


2.) It wasn't an "Explosion", as mentioned it occurred over millions and millions of years. Estimated rates of evolution are 5x faster than they are to today (either because of more mutations, or higher selective pressure).This is not really unprecedented; as after mass extinctions, for example, there is a burst of adaptive radiation. There are numerous, reasonable and well understood mechanisms for this: There is far more selective pressure that can guide adaptations towards an ecological niche, if there is no existing competition for that niche (because animals do not exist to already hold that niche, or the ones that were are all dead).


The Cambrian explosion can be broken down into stages, the two most dramatic stages together took around 6 million years. The Atdabanian stage perhaps 2.5 MY and the Botomian stage perhaps 3.5 MY. This period encapsulates the bulk of the diversification, see: http://www.evolutionnews.org...

(Taken from Samuel A. Bowring, John P. Grotzinger, Clark E. Isachsen, Andrew H. Knoll, Shane M. Pelechaty, Peter Kolosov, "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," Science, Vol. 261 (September 3, 1993)).

Furthermore it is universally referred to as an "explosion" in the scientific literature so I don't see any basis for you objecting when the OP refers to it in this manner.

3.) There are several possible explanations for why more fauna appears in the Cambrian than prior that do not involve a relative explosion: For example the evolution of hard bodies and skeletons. Soft bodies are very hard to fossilise whereas skeletons are not. Such examples do not eliminate the explosion, but provide a selection bias in the findings (thus reducing the impact of the explosion part of the explosion).

This is tired and had you done a little more homework you'd realize that this won't help you. In many parts of the earth where Cambrian fossils are found it also found that soft bodied organisms - like amoeba - are in fact fossilized superbly in strata beneath the Cambrian fossils. So the apparent absence of transitional fossils seems to be an actual historical absence.

I'd like to ask you on what grounds do you base your belief that such ancestors existed?

4.) The fundamental problem with the cambrian is not the rate of evolution; or how many body plans evolved in that era; it is simply and solely that we don't know what changed. What environmental or biological change that caused the increased rate: We know the increased rates can and have occured; and have evidence that supports them; just not exactly what it was in this example.

Actually the fundamental problem - to evolutionists - is that the supposed ancestors for a huge array of 28 very distinct phyla are not there, no trace, there is no evidence at all anywhere we find these fossils, that they actually evolved. If they evolved they must have had a rather non-trivial ancestral tree this is unavoidable if evolution be the cause.

Sadly for the evolutionist there's no evidence at all that such ancestors ever existed despite conditions for fossilization often being superb - as you'll discover if you bother to investigate this mystery with an open mind.

Of course, Harry's mind, what little there is left, is shut tight, no amount of understanding, facts or evidence shall enter under any circumstances.

Btw Harry, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", but I understand why you use it.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:02:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 1:20:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:39:38 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:30:34 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, so I'm going to bite. I really shouldn't, but I'm a scientist:

1.) The Cambrian Explosion did not generate 99% of life, not even close. What it is, is a place where the evolution of most "fundamental" body plans started being significantly recorded in the fossile record. There is evidence of those body plans evolving before; and the Cambrian explosion did not generate starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals and in fact the majority of modern fauna and groups. It did, however, establish the fundamentals of those; the root of the tree.

The fossil record indicates that around 28 of the 42 known animal phyla arose during the cambrian explosion, that's about 67% - admittedly less than 99% but I'd say it was close.


2.) It wasn't an "Explosion", as mentioned it occurred over millions and millions of years. Estimated rates of evolution are 5x faster than they are to today (either because of more mutations, or higher selective pressure).This is not really unprecedented; as after mass extinctions, for example, there is a burst of adaptive radiation. There are numerous, reasonable and well understood mechanisms for this: There is far more selective pressure that can guide adaptations towards an ecological niche, if there is no existing competition for that niche (because animals do not exist to already hold that niche, or the ones that were are all dead).


The Cambrian explosion can be broken down into stages, the two most dramatic stages together took around 6 million years. The Atdabanian stage perhaps 2.5 MY and the Botomian stage perhaps 3.5 MY. This period encapsulates the bulk of the diversification, see: http://www.evolutionnews.org...

(Taken from Samuel A. Bowring, John P. Grotzinger, Clark E. Isachsen, Andrew H. Knoll, Shane M. Pelechaty, Peter Kolosov, "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," Science, Vol. 261 (September 3, 1993)).

Furthermore it is universally referred to as an "explosion" in the scientific literature so I don't see any basis for you objecting when the OP refers to it in this manner.

3.) There are several possible explanations for why more fauna appears in the Cambrian than prior that do not involve a relative explosion: For example the evolution of hard bodies and skeletons. Soft bodies are very hard to fossilise whereas skeletons are not. Such examples do not eliminate the explosion, but provide a selection bias in the findings (thus reducing the impact of the explosion part of the explosion).

This is tired and had you done a little more homework you'd realize that this won't help you. In many parts of the earth where Cambrian fossils are found it also found that soft bodied organisms - like amoeba - are in fact fossilized superbly in strata beneath the Cambrian fossils. So the apparent absence of transitional fossils seems to be an actual historical absence.

I'd like to ask you on what grounds do you base your belief that such ancestors existed?

4.) The fundamental problem with the cambrian is not the rate of evolution; or how many body plans evolved in that era; it is simply and solely that we don't know what changed. What environmental or biological change that caused the increased rate: We know the increased rates can and have occured; and have evidence that supports them; just not exactly what it was in this example.

Actually the fundamental problem - to evolutionists - is that the supposed ancestors for a huge array of 28 very distinct phyla are not there, no trace, there is no evidence at all anywhere we find these fossils, that they actually evolved. If they evolved they must have had a rather non-trivial ancestral tree this is unavoidable if evolution be the cause.

Sadly for the evolutionist there's no evidence at all that such ancestors ever existed despite conditions for fossilization often being superb - as you'll discover if you bother to investigate this mystery with an open mind.

Of course, Harry's mind, what little there is left, is shut tight, no amount of understanding, facts or evidence shall enter under any circumstances.

Btw Harry, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", but I understand why you use it.

Harry.

Another vacuous post whining because there are people who disagree with you, grow up man, this should be fun, you're such a miserable person.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 3:53:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 4:02:34 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 1:20:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:39:38 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:30:34 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, so I'm going to bite. I really shouldn't, but I'm a scientist:

1.) The Cambrian Explosion did not generate 99% of life, not even close. What it is, is a place where the evolution of most "fundamental" body plans started being significantly recorded in the fossile record. There is evidence of those body plans evolving before; and the Cambrian explosion did not generate starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals and in fact the majority of modern fauna and groups. It did, however, establish the fundamentals of those; the root of the tree.

The fossil record indicates that around 28 of the 42 known animal phyla arose during the cambrian explosion, that's about 67% - admittedly less than 99% but I'd say it was close.


2.) It wasn't an "Explosion", as mentioned it occurred over millions and millions of years. Estimated rates of evolution are 5x faster than they are to today (either because of more mutations, or higher selective pressure).This is not really unprecedented; as after mass extinctions, for example, there is a burst of adaptive radiation. There are numerous, reasonable and well understood mechanisms for this: There is far more selective pressure that can guide adaptations towards an ecological niche, if there is no existing competition for that niche (because animals do not exist to already hold that niche, or the ones that were are all dead).


The Cambrian explosion can be broken down into stages, the two most dramatic stages together took around 6 million years. The Atdabanian stage perhaps 2.5 MY and the Botomian stage perhaps 3.5 MY. This period encapsulates the bulk of the diversification, see: http://www.evolutionnews.org...

(Taken from Samuel A. Bowring, John P. Grotzinger, Clark E. Isachsen, Andrew H. Knoll, Shane M. Pelechaty, Peter Kolosov, "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," Science, Vol. 261 (September 3, 1993)).

Furthermore it is universally referred to as an "explosion" in the scientific literature so I don't see any basis for you objecting when the OP refers to it in this manner.

3.) There are several possible explanations for why more fauna appears in the Cambrian than prior that do not involve a relative explosion: For example the evolution of hard bodies and skeletons. Soft bodies are very hard to fossilise whereas skeletons are not. Such examples do not eliminate the explosion, but provide a selection bias in the findings (thus reducing the impact of the explosion part of the explosion).

This is tired and had you done a little more homework you'd realize that this won't help you. In many parts of the earth where Cambrian fossils are found it also found that soft bodied organisms - like amoeba - are in fact fossilized superbly in strata beneath the Cambrian fossils. So the apparent absence of transitional fossils seems to be an actual historical absence.

I'd like to ask you on what grounds do you base your belief that such ancestors existed?

4.) The fundamental problem with the cambrian is not the rate of evolution; or how many body plans evolved in that era; it is simply and solely that we don't know what changed. What environmental or biological change that caused the increased rate: We know the increased rates can and have occured; and have evidence that supports them; just not exactly what it was in this example.

Actually the fundamental problem - to evolutionists - is that the supposed ancestors for a huge array of 28 very distinct phyla are not there, no trace, there is no evidence at all anywhere we find these fossils, that they actually evolved. If they evolved they must have had a rather non-trivial ancestral tree this is unavoidable if evolution be the cause.

Sadly for the evolutionist there's no evidence at all that such ancestors ever existed despite conditions for fossilization often being superb - as you'll discover if you bother to investigate this mystery with an open mind.

Of course, Harry's mind, what little there is left, is shut tight, no amount of understanding, facts or evidence shall enter under any circumstances.

Btw Harry, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", but I understand why you use it.

Harry.

Another vacuous post whining because there are people who disagree with you

Denying facts, Harry, not disagreeing, that's what you do. If you actually disagreed, then you would know what you're talking about.

, grow up man, this should be fun, you're such a miserable person.

Harry.

Cherry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:17:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 3:53:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 4:02:34 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/17/2016 1:20:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:39:38 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:30:34 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, so I'm going to bite. I really shouldn't, but I'm a scientist:

1.) The Cambrian Explosion did not generate 99% of life, not even close. What it is, is a place where the evolution of most "fundamental" body plans started being significantly recorded in the fossile record. There is evidence of those body plans evolving before; and the Cambrian explosion did not generate starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals and in fact the majority of modern fauna and groups. It did, however, establish the fundamentals of those; the root of the tree.

The fossil record indicates that around 28 of the 42 known animal phyla arose during the cambrian explosion, that's about 67% - admittedly less than 99% but I'd say it was close.


2.) It wasn't an "Explosion", as mentioned it occurred over millions and millions of years. Estimated rates of evolution are 5x faster than they are to today (either because of more mutations, or higher selective pressure).This is not really unprecedented; as after mass extinctions, for example, there is a burst of adaptive radiation. There are numerous, reasonable and well understood mechanisms for this: There is far more selective pressure that can guide adaptations towards an ecological niche, if there is no existing competition for that niche (because animals do not exist to already hold that niche, or the ones that were are all dead).


The Cambrian explosion can be broken down into stages, the two most dramatic stages together took around 6 million years. The Atdabanian stage perhaps 2.5 MY and the Botomian stage perhaps 3.5 MY. This period encapsulates the bulk of the diversification, see: http://www.evolutionnews.org...

(Taken from Samuel A. Bowring, John P. Grotzinger, Clark E. Isachsen, Andrew H. Knoll, Shane M. Pelechaty, Peter Kolosov, "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," Science, Vol. 261 (September 3, 1993)).

Furthermore it is universally referred to as an "explosion" in the scientific literature so I don't see any basis for you objecting when the OP refers to it in this manner.

3.) There are several possible explanations for why more fauna appears in the Cambrian than prior that do not involve a relative explosion: For example the evolution of hard bodies and skeletons. Soft bodies are very hard to fossilise whereas skeletons are not. Such examples do not eliminate the explosion, but provide a selection bias in the findings (thus reducing the impact of the explosion part of the explosion).

This is tired and had you done a little more homework you'd realize that this won't help you. In many parts of the earth where Cambrian fossils are found it also found that soft bodied organisms - like amoeba - are in fact fossilized superbly in strata beneath the Cambrian fossils. So the apparent absence of transitional fossils seems to be an actual historical absence.

I'd like to ask you on what grounds do you base your belief that such ancestors existed?

4.) The fundamental problem with the cambrian is not the rate of evolution; or how many body plans evolved in that era; it is simply and solely that we don't know what changed. What environmental or biological change that caused the increased rate: We know the increased rates can and have occured; and have evidence that supports them; just not exactly what it was in this example.

Actually the fundamental problem - to evolutionists - is that the supposed ancestors for a huge array of 28 very distinct phyla are not there, no trace, there is no evidence at all anywhere we find these fossils, that they actually evolved. If they evolved they must have had a rather non-trivial ancestral tree this is unavoidable if evolution be the cause.

Sadly for the evolutionist there's no evidence at all that such ancestors ever existed despite conditions for fossilization often being superb - as you'll discover if you bother to investigate this mystery with an open mind.

Of course, Harry's mind, what little there is left, is shut tight, no amount of understanding, facts or evidence shall enter under any circumstances.

Btw Harry, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", but I understand why you use it.

Harry.

Another vacuous post whining because there are people who disagree with you

Denying facts, Harry, not disagreeing, that's what you do. If you actually disagreed, then you would know what you're talking about.

, grow up man, this should be fun, you're such a miserable person.

Harry.

Cherry.

Your ignorance and incredulity of the subject matter do not allow logical discourse as all you do is deny the facts and evidence. Come back when you've educated yourself.