Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Yes, attack. You have not once said one word in regard to the lack of fossil evidence though I've provided multiple points upon which you could argue your case....
Not true, and quite a value judgement to boot. I think differently, I've stated my case, and have only gotten meaningless doubletalk in response from someone who does his best to appear as though he knows what he's talking about but has yet to say anything useful outside of the usual talking points provided by the NCSE....
Scientific naturalists are fearful that if they lose any ground, it means that the religious creationists will inevitably take over and do harm to children in the process. I have not once mentioned creationism as my goal and in fact it is not. I want the truth, plain and simple. I hope you can also see how this underlying motivation can easily color objectivity on any level, including basic science....
No, it's NOT the real issue I've been posting about. I take issue with evolutionary theory based upon the what I've posted JEDSContour, I have no evil ulterior motive to promote creationism.


Cjbaldw, it is frankly just painful to argue about â??yourâ? points. Just so people reading this know, the arguments espoused by cjbaldw came directly from the religious site â??Answers in Genesis.â? Damn near verbatim for the most part. Of course these anti-evolution arguments have been repeated multiple times by religious right organizations so it is hard to say exactly where he read them. The intent of these arguments is NOT to encourage an honest debate about evolution â??? the intent is simply to confuse the layperson.

OK cjbaldw, I know itâ??s a waste of time. I know it is but letâ??s examine one of your arguments anyway:

Quote:

The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion of around 600 million years ago (using the carbon dating other people in this thread have mentioned). Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period, without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist, puts it, "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." In Darwin's time there was no evidence for the existence of pre-Cambrian life, and he conceded in The Origin of Species no less that "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." If his theory was true, Darwin wrote, the pre-Cambrian world must have "swarmed with living creatures".


I actually took this from â??Answers in Genesisâ? but since itâ??s nearly identical to your post, what the hell.

So this is the single greatest problem for the theory of evolution? Well Whoop dee doo.

OK children what is the Cambrian Explosion?

Answer:

The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago. The interesting thing about the Cambrian explosion is that larger things with hard parts that actually look like animals begin to appear, particularly the first trilobites. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some scientists say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

Was the Cambrian explosion the start of complex life on earth? Well, no it wasnâ??t, there is extensive evidence of multi-cellular life dating from about 560 to 590 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of single cell life dating as far back as 1 billion years and chemical evidence of single cell life dating back almost four billion years. Life has been here a long long time.

Did all modern phyla suddenly appear in the Cambrian explosion? No they did not. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Million years ago. Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian. Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. Almost none of the animal groups that we think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

Why are there no transitional fossils in the Cambrian fossil record? Well actually there are. As an example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.

So what happened? Why did squishy multi cell lumps suddenly start sprouting legs and sense organs? Why is the diversification so suddenly evident?
Well there are many good reasons:
â?¢ The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
â?¢ Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian. Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
â?¢ The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian. A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
â?¢ Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify.
â?¢ Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian.
â?¢ Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation.
â?¢ Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian.
All of these factors encouraged rapid evolution.

How rapid was the evolution? Cambrian life was very much unlike almost everything alive today. Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian. Besides, major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example.

How any of this is a challenge to evolution, much less the major challenge is beyond me. I think that creationists just like to say â??Cambrian Explosion crisisâ? because it makes them sound knowledgeable.

Studying the Cambrian is basically an exciting and rewarding activity for evolutionary biologists with much left to discover about this fascinating time. Not a crisis for the theory of evolution though.


99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock). 99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress) 96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles