Cambrian explosion News

The Economist replies to Steve Meyer, seemingly

Spread the love

From the Economist:

In the fourth of our series of articles on scientific mysteries we ask why, a mere 542m years ago, animal life suddenly took off

Oh, we mean Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, about the Cambrian explosion of life forms over half a billion years ago.

Just look at how Darwin’s Econo followers handle the question:

There is, however, one other thought—that the Cambrian explosion is not the fundamental mystery it seems to be. The true mystery, rather, is the Ediacaran, whose animals really did appear out of nowhere, and then vanished for reasons unknown before the Cambrian got going.

The fossil record is full of sudden cast changes like this. They are known as mass extinctions. …

In a mass extinction the board of life is cleared of many pieces by an external event, such as the asteroid strike that did for the dinosaurs. It then takes several million years for replacements to evolve from whatever is left. Those remnants might have been (as Mesozoic mammals were) insignificant in the previous regime. In the case of the Ediacaran, given how long ago it was and how few of its rocks are available for inspection, they might thus remain almost undetected by palaeontologists. Arkarua, known from a single site in Australia, may be an example of one of these cryptic animals-in-waiting.

It is true that no evidence of an extinction-causing event has been found in rocks that straddle the Ediacaran and Cambrian periods, but several later mass extinctions have no known cause, either. And, if such an extinction did happen, it is perfectly plausible that some unidentified Ediacaran triploblasts went on to play the role of the Mesozoic mammals by emerging from obscurity when the competition had been eliminated. In the chaotic aftermath of the extinction, they would have been able to multiply, diversify and drive each other’s evolution (by such means as hunting one another) in ways that foreshadowed those of the modern world, red in tooth and claw. More.

This is pathetic. “One other thought… not the fundamental mystery it seems to be” “It is true that no evidence… ” “it is perfectly plausible” “would have been”

And it is not about extinctions, but masses of new life forms.

Hey, vote for naturalism in science. Pay taxes for it. Scrimp for your taxes for it. Kowtow to ‘crats for it.

It is a money pit, but we will be approved by the people who collect the money.

We won’t get any science but that doesn’t matter—we will get the good opinion of twerps, twits, airheads, and bimbos, and that will be of more use in the days ahead.

Alternatively, we could go back to being free peoples, having honest discussions. Of course, we would be unpopular among educrats, new atheists, and – in some religious circles –  headbangers for the DarwinJesus. Count the cost.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “The Economist replies to Steve Meyer, seemingly

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: podcast – Dr. Cornelius Hunter: False Predictions of Darwinian Evolution, pt. 4
    In this fourth and final podcast of the series, Dr. Hunter discusses evolution’s failed prediction that competition should be greatest between neighbors.
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....more-30241

    Here are parts 1 thru 3

    podcast – Dr. Cornelius Hunter: False Predictions of Darwinian Evolution, pt. 1
    In this first podcast of a series, he discusses why he was inspired to pursue this work.
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....tion-pt-1/

    podcast – Dr. Cornelius Hunter: False Predictions of Darwinian Evolution, pt. 2
    In this second podcast in a series, Dr. Hunter discusses the uniqueness of the DNA code and differences in fundamental molecules.
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....tion-pt-2/

    podcast – Dr. Cornelius Hunter: False Predictions of Darwinian Evolution, pt. 3
    In this third podcast of a series, Hunter discusses the prediction of Darwinian theory that mutations should not be adaptive but, instead, random, with respect to organisms’ needs. Hunter contrasts this with what University of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro has shown about his model of natural genetic engineering.
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....tion-pt-3/

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    Can one find biological evidence in rocks?
    There is no bio evidence for extinctions anywhere in the fossil record. jUst a record of creatures who when died were fossilized.
    The rest is geology musings. Not biology evifdence.
    ID folks screw this up too.
    there was no stupid space rock wiping out the flintstones.
    its a silly myth.
    There is just a change in fauna/flora as the bible says from the true great flood.
    How could someone know a comet clobbered biology out of its ease at a certain time? Why so easily accept such fantastic claims?

Leave a Reply