Darwinian Debating Device #18: The “You’re Too Stupid to Understand Why I’m Smarter than You” Dismissal

_{Barry Arrington

May 10, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

DDD # 18 is a particularly contemptible form of ad hominem, which Mark Frank and Elizabeth Liddle do us the service of demonstrating in the combox to this post. In the post Dr. Torley refers to Darwin’s Doubt by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, which explains many of the shortcomings of various Darwinian narratives. Frank and Liddle tag team for a DDD #18:

Mark Frank:

[Meyer] explains perceived weaknesses in his understanding of evolutionary theory but gives no reason why design is a better alternative.

Liddle:

Exactly. His understanding of evolutionary theory is weak, and actual evolutionary theory is a better alternative.

Follow this link and take a look at what scientists who actually know what they are talking about have said about Darwin’s Doubt. A sample:

Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion. An engaging investigation of the origin of animal life and a compelling case for intelligent design.

Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist Emeritus (Biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research

Darwin’s Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life—the rapid efflorescence of complex body plans written in the fossils of the Burgess Shale . . . No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged, and discussed.

Dr. Scott Turner, Professor of Biology, State University of New York

Does anyone believe that numerous highly-credentialed scientists, many of whom specialize in biology, would recommend Meyer’s book if his “understanding of evolutionary theory is weak”? Of course not. What does this mean? It means that Elizabeth Liddle’s statement is false. I will leave it to others to debate whether she is merely too muddle-headed to understand that she has made an egregiously false ad hominem attack as a substitute for argument, or she knows the truth and has deliberately misled. The point is that either way, Liddle has avoided having to actually defend against Meyer’s claims by simply dismissing him as too stupid to understand why Darwinists like her are smarter than he. And that is contemptible.

Comments

FTR Just to be clear, Mung: you defaced a comment of RB's, which you acknowledge was a clear violation of TSZ's rules. Elizabeth restored RB's comment to its original form. Her principles are doing just fine, thank you.DNA_Jock_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Oh, and Mung: Far from editing your post on TSZ, I restored someone else’s post that that you had edited.
And this is oh so typical of Elizabeth. I did not say my post was edited. So that's a complete non-sequitur. It's your site Elizabeth. If you want to violate your own principles to enforce your principles that's certainly your prerogative. Just don't be surprised if someone points it out.Mung_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

a bit more on small shelly fauna: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-elizabeth-liddle-doesnt-understand-about-the-cambrian-explosion/#comment-564219bornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

corrected link: Metamorphosis Is Widespread – Ann Gauger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1jJIpib8Aobornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Moreover, the complexity of the life cycles, of many of the different phyla found in the Cambrian Explosion, was anything but simple: The Enigma of Metamorphosis Is Hardly Limited to Butterflies - October 2011 Excerpt: Even more mysteriously, it appears that the most ancient phyla were metamorphic from the beginning, based on the few larval forms that have been preserved. This suggests that these Cambrian animals had not one but two or more developmental stages at the outset,,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/the_enigma_of_metamorphosis_is051541.html Metamorphosis Is Widespread - Ann Gauger - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkD-jd1imaI From Discovering Intelligent Design: My How You've Changed - May 26, 2013 Excerpt: Holometabolism (complete metamorphosis) is the most common and complicated form of insect maturation. The diverse group that undergoes this type of process includes butterflies, moths, beetles, fleas, bees, ants, and many kinds of flies.,,, It is exceedingly difficult to understand the origin of holometabolism in Darwinian evolutionary terms. Neither the larval nor the pupal stage is capable of reproduction -- only the adult is. In particular, the pupal stage is an all-or nothing proposition. It must complete the process and become an adult, or it will die without ever reproducing. The liquefied organism must be completely rebuilt. For this to occur, large amounts of information -- encoding the larval body plan, the mechanisms of transformation during metamorphosis, and the adult body plan -- must exist before the larva enters this stage. An organism could not survive complete metamorphosis unless the entire process was fully programmed from the beginning. Such a large jump in complexity requires forethought and planning -- things that don't exist in Darwinian evolution. As one evolutionary entomologist acknowledges: "... the biggest head-scratcher in evolutionary biology would have to be the origin of the holometabolous insect larva." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/from_discoverin_3072521.htmlbornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Darwin’s Tree of Life was uprooted in the Cambrian explosion - March 17, 2014 Excerpt: ,,,The study had sought to determine the evolutionary history of the animal phyla by analyzing fifty genes along seventeen taxa. He hoped that a single, dominant phylogenetic tree would emerge. Rokas and his team reported that “a 5-gene data matrix does not resolve relationships among most metazoan phyla” because it generated numerous conflicting phylogenies and historical signals. Their conclusion was candid: “Despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved.”,,, Sean B. Carroll went so far as to assert that “certain critical parts of the TOL [Tree of Life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available.” This problem applies specifically to the relationships of many of the animal phyla, where “[m]any recent studies have reported support for many alternative conflicting phylogenies.” Investigators studying the animal tree found that “ a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality” such that in one case, a study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom”,,, Their article brings the discussion of the Cambrian explosion full circle from an attempt to use genes to compensate for the absence of fossil evidence to the acknowledgment that genes do not convey any clear signal about the evolutionary relationships of the phyla first preserved by fossils in the Cambrian. Steve Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (pp. 120–21) https://uncommondescent.com/tree-of-life/darwins-tree-of-life-was-uprooted-in-the-cambrian-explosion/ Small shelly fauna Dickinsonia[19] Halkieria sclerites[20] Kimberella[21] Helcionellids[22] Undead: The Myth of the 80-Million-Year Cambrian Explosion - November 13, 2013 Excerpt: the trick is premised on "including as part of the Cambrian explosion (a) the origin of the Ediacaran organisms in the late Precambrian (which no serious scientist considers to be ancestral to the Cambrian animals), and (b) the small shelly fossils at the base of the Cambrian and (c) the main pulse of morphological innovation in the early Cambrian, and (d) subsequent diversification events right up until the end of the Cambrian period.",,, - Meyer notes that Marshall himself elsewhere excludes the precious small shellies.,,,- http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/undead_the_myth079081.html Macroscopic life in the Palaeoproterozoic - July 2010 Excerpt: The Ediacaran fauna shows that soft-bodied animals were preserved in the Precambrian, even in coarse sandstone beds, suggesting that (the hypothetical transitional) fossils are not found because they were not there. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/02/macroscopic_life_in_the_palaeoproterozoi Response to John Wise - October 2010 "So, where then are those ancestors? Fossil preservation conditions were adequate to preserve animals such as jellyfish, corals, and sponges, as well as the Ediacaran fauna. It does not appear that scarcity is a fault of the fossil record." Sean Carroll developmental biologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html At North Dakota State University, Presenting the Positive Case for Design – Casey Luskin – February 14, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, Simon Conway Morris notes in his book Crucible of Creation that in the Burgess Shale fossil collections which document the Cambrian explosion, “about 95 per cent are either soft-bodied or have thin skeletons.” [p. 140]. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/at_north_dakota056351.html "Are Pre-Cambrian Fossils the Solution to Darwin's Dilemma?" - podcast - January 2012 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-01-20T15_45_26-08_00 "---a number of the body plans that today characterize major taxa first appear during or 'shortly' before the interval from about 530 to 520 Ma,---." - Valentine, James W., David Jablonski and Douglas H. Erwin. Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion. Development 126. 1999. The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity - Casey Luskin - February 4, 2014 Excerpt: "The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright's (1) term as 'from the top down'." (James W. Valentine, "Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/the_ham-nye_deb081911.html All skeletalised metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian - David Tyler - 2010 Excerpt: This means that Cambrian strata can be said to record examples of all the skeletalized metazoan phyla.,,, Subsequent periods of Earth history may have had more dramatic radiations at the Order, Class or Family level, but there were no further bauplan innovations affecting skeletalized metazoan organisms. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/12/09/all_skeletalised_metazoan_phyla_appeared Chinese microscopic fossil find challenges Darwin's theory - 11 November, 2014 Excerpt: One of the world's leading researchers on the Cambria explosion is Chen Junyuan from the Nanjing Institute of Palaeontology and he said that his fossil discoveries in China show that "Darwin's tree is a reverse cone shape". A senior research fellow at Chengjiang Fauna [fossil site], said, "I do not believe the animals developed gradually from the bottom up, I think they suddenly appeared". As a medical professional and former atheist, I ignorantly believed that Darwin's evolutionary theory was a scientific fact. The fact is, Darwinism has never been more than an unproven theory,,, http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1636922/chinese-microscopic-fossil-find-challenges-darwins-theorybornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

ppolish: Oh please, it does not. It extends it at least 10-20 million years, and as Kimberella is likely a triploblastic protostome, it means the divergence of animals happened even sooner in the Precambrian. See Fedonkin & Waggoner, The Late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism, Nature 1997.Zachriel_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Wow thank you very much bornagain77!!! God bless you.JimFit_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

"Kimberella extends the period considerably". Oh please, it does not. Do you even understand NS & RM. Seems not.ppolish_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

ppolish: Darwin was already aware of a few pre Cambrians fossils, but was still doubtful they could explain a NS & RM Cambrian. Kimberella would change his mind? The problem Darwin had was the apparent rapidity of the diversification during the Cambrian. Kimberella extends the period considerably, and provides intermediates between simpler colonial organisms and the more integrated organisms characteristic of later animal life.Zachriel_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Zach, Darwin was already aware of a few pre Cambrians fossils, but was still doubtful they could explain a NS & RM Cambrian. Kimberella would change his mind? I argue no. I argue Darwin would have abandoned his theory if he had today's evidence. Natural Design would be Darwin's modern theory.ppolish_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

ppolish: Kimberella & Finch Beaks. Hang on to those You said you "doubting the theory due to the lack of fossils". There are now hundreds of Kimberella fossils showing that animal life was already diversifying before the Cambrian.Zachriel_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Kimberella & Finch Beaks. Hang on to those, Zach, hold on tightly to those. Common Molecular Toolkit of Intelligent Design explains them both also. Without the added inconvenience of NS & RM. Which would Brother Occam prefer?ppolish_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Like Darwin you are assuming it. Prove otherwise....Andre_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

ppolish: Darwin predicted fossils to support his theory would show up someday. Kimberella shows that bilaterians were diversifying well before the Cambrian.Zachriel_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

I'm like Darwin himself, Zach, doubting the theory due to the lack of fossils. Fossils indicating NS & RM gave rise to the Cambrian Explosion. Darwin's Doubt = ppolish's Doubt. Darwin predicted fossils to support his theory would show up someday. Or maybe they were destroyed he mused. Both predictions = fail. Sorry Charlie.ppolish_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: What missing phyla? Do you mean missing intermediates? If so, the molecular evidence has helped unravel the order of divergence. ppolish: Molecular evidence lol. No wonder the fossils have never been found. You didn't seem to answer the question. Are you saying there are no fossils before the origin of the major phyla?Zachriel_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Like the missing fossils, The molecular evidence does not satisfy:
Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life" - Casey Luskin - February 2, 2015 Excerpt: When fossils failed to demonstrate that animals evolved from a common ancestor, evolutionary scientists turned to another type of evidence -- DNA sequence data -- to demonstrate a tree of life. ,,, At the end of the day, the dream that DNA sequence data would fit into a nice-neat tree of life has failed, and with it a key prediction of neo-Darwinian theory. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_6_molec091151.html A Big Problem for Common Descent: Hundreds of "Active 'Foreign' Genes" Don't Fit the Standard Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - March 25, 2015 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/a_big_problem_f094701.html Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php podcast - Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on (Darwin's) Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - March 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-14T16_17_31-07_00
Since the molecular evidence and the fossil evidence are not allowed to falsify Darwinian claims (at least in the minds of Darwinists), we can only hope that the elusive pre-cambrian rabbit turns up some day so as to finally 'scientifically' falsify Darwinian claims! :) The Mad Hatter of Alice in Wonderland should move over and let neo-Darwinists take his place! They put him to shame as to inanity. Mad Hatter http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141031044003/disney/images/a/a3/Alice-in-wonderland-wallpaper-mad-hatter-4.jpgbornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Molecular evidence lol. No wonder the fossils have never been found. Will never be found.ppolish_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

ppolish: But having 25 phyla showing up suddenly in Cambrian throws a spanner in the works. Darwin was keenly aware and expected the missing phyla to show up someday in the fossil record. What missing phyla? Do you mean missing intermediates? If so, the molecular evidence has helped unravel the order of divergence.Zachriel_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

"Darwin produced his theory to account for the observed pattern, and it does)." No it doesn't Ms Liddle. Common Descent has phyla1 eventually giving rise to phyla2 and phyla3 for example. Phyla5, 6, and 7 arise from 2 and 3 for example. Wondrously so on and so forth. But having 25 phyla showing up suddenly in Cambrian throws a spanner in the works. Darwin was keenly aware and expected the missing phyla to show up someday in the fossil record. If Darwin were around today he would have a tough time making it through freshman biology - and he would also concede the fossils are not going to show up. They're not. At least he got the "Creator Breath" correct. Got the Forest correct, screwed up on the tree.ppolish_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

OT: Theory of Convergent Evolution Analyzed - May 11, 2015 Excerpt: Casey Luskin has argued that Darwinians appeal to convergence in order to have it both ways: basically, "biological similarity implies common ancestry, except when it doesn't." The authors of this new paper do not respond to that charge specifically, but they go further than most Darwinians by not just asserting convergence occurred, but by offering evolutionary mechanisms that might produce it. (thus disobeying the first cardinal rule of evolutionary biology: 1. Thou shalt not analyze neo-Darwinism too closely!) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/theory_of_conve095951.htmlbornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Here are more thorough looks at the major flaws in all the critical reviews of 'Darwin's Doubt': Darwin's Doubt - Reviews - Part 1 - by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW8SLKoSZqM Darwin's Doubt - Reviews - Part 2 - by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPqN0-YiJgg Darwin's Doubt - Reviews - Part 3 - by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mj1thPrSgc Darwin's Doubt - Reviews - Part 4 - by Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfEfa6KaEXUbornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke was addressed here: A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4 Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1kbornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Did anyone here do a refutation of these articles? http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/06/meyers-hopeless-3.htmlJimFit_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

BA77: Some excellent clips & links. The ENV on Valentine is especially well worth pondering: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/erwin_valentine_cambrian_explosion073671.html KFkairosfocus_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Andre:
This is of course not true, and you know it! Here is why; because you’re assuming it!
um, no.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Allow me to paraphrase Lizzie's "critique":
Meyer: "What Darwin expected to find at the 'top', we actually find at the 'bottom'".
[entering Lizzie]
Lizzie: "You don't understand the theory of evolution. What is termed the 'top' should be at the top by definition. That's why it's termed the top".
Box_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle
this turned out also to apply to fossils, and, moreoever, the strata in which the fossils were found also mapped neatly on to the branching hierarchy if you regarded the hierarchy as a family tree
This is of course not true, and you know it! Here is why; because you're assuming it!Andre_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Moreover, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
“Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.” Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)
Here is a site where people can view the 'yawning chasms' between the phyla for themselves:
Fossil Gallery - images of species from Cambrian period - Main Gallery The Main Gallery is a comprehensive source of information based on the latest scientific research covering the majority of species so far described from the Burgess Shale. It contains a growing collection of over 500 high resolution images representing 184 species in 135 genera. In addition, dozens of scientifically accurate drawings and breathtaking digital animations will allow you to visualize these organisms in three dimensions and see how they lived. http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/fossil-gallery/list-species.php
Even vertebrate are present in the Cambrian Explosion:
picture - 550 million year old fossil fish - "Most major animal groups appear suddenly in the fossil record 550 million years ago, but vertebrates have been absent from this 'Big Bang' of life. Two fish-like animals from Early Cambrian rocks now fill this gap." "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China" - Nov. 1999 http://www.evolutionnews.org/cambrianfish.jpg Metaspriggina: Vertebrates Found in Cambrian Explosion - August 29, 2014 Excerpt: Now that some months have passed since the discovery of another rich trove of Cambrian fossils 26 miles from the Burgess Shale, scientists are starting to publish findings from the new Marble Canyon site. One amazing find just published by Simon Conway Morris and Jean-Bernard Caron is putting more bang in the Cambrian explosion.,,, ,,,confirms that this animal was far more than a chordate: it was a vertebrate fish, right there in the Lower Cambrian! Imagine a vertebrate fish, with a skeleton, binocular vision, muscles, nerves, gut and blood vessels: it is so complex compared to what came before, it makes the suddenness and explosive increase in complexity undeniable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/metaspriggina_v089471.html
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted in his book for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html
Quotes about the 'un-Darwinian' fossil record from leading paleontologists are abundant in the literature. Here are a couple:
“In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians
Thus, as far as the fossil record itself is concerned, Darwinian evolution is, as with all other lines of evidence that are examined, falsified. Verse:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,,,
bornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply