6 Replies to “The Shape of Life: Animating the Cambrian Explosion (Video)

  1. 1
    Andre says:

    And this video perfectly explains what’s wrong with evolutionary theory, just make stuff up as you go along regardless of what the evidence say!

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    The cambrian thing is not biological evidence for or against evolution. It just shows creatures caught in a moment of time and fossilized thereto.
    Any connections made to creatures other then these is unrelated to biological investigation.
    it is only presuming there are connections based on a hunch or faith in geological sequences correctly having fossilized later/earlier living creatures.

    I ash my ID allies the same thing I ask evolutionists.
    Can you provide biological scientific evidence for a series of fossils in a strata being in a relative stage as compared to another group of fossils in another strata.
    ID is doing exactly what evolutionists do.
    I’m not saying your wrong (you are say YEC) but I’m asking for your methodology credibility.
    Just method!!
    The whole use of the Cambrian explosion to frustrate evolutionism is making the same stress to YEC about logic in investigation.
    Any takers!!

  3. 3

    Robert Byers:

    The point of the Cambrian Explosion is the vast infusion of information into the biosphere required to get a whole bunch of new body plans and creatures in a short time. It is a problem for traditional evolutionary theory because (i) the information content is not explainable by purely natural processes, (ii) it happened much faster than many other alleged evolutionary events, and (iii) in most cases there is little in the way of predecessors, thus quite different than the “slight, successive changes” evolutionary mantra. All three should cause us to question the traditional evolutionary story.

    Not sure what your YEC issue is. YEC is irrelevant to ID proper.

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    Eric Anderson
    Your three points make my point.
    You are showing the problem of using the so called Cambrian explosion.
    Conclusions/criticisms are being made entirely on these fossils based on their place in time based on geological strata concepts.
    There is no biological investigation going on here!
    If your geology was wrong all your ideas here are wrong about the biology.
    So i cry foul about what ID does here in arguing the Cambrian explosion is a rebuke to evolutionary biology.
    Fine as a rebuke to evolution but DON’T say its a rebuke based on biological scientific investigation!!!
    Likewise i say to evolutionists also the fossil record has no claim as biological scientific evidence.
    Thanks for addressing me as I find ID folk are just as wrong as evolutionists folks.
    YEC does a better job here of accurate analysis of these fossils=biology truth claims.

  5. 5

    Robert, sorry, but I certainly did not show any problem of using the Cambrian Explosion. It is a real issue that is a problem for traditional evolutionary theory, for the reasons I listed. And ID folks should not apologize for using it.

    Even if you were right about your geological timeframe assumptions (which are very much in dispute), it would still be appropriate to discuss the Cambrian Explosion as a problem for traditional evolutionary theory on the principle of the hostile witness.

  6. 6
    Robert Byers says:

    Eric Anderson
    Id researchers use of the Cambrian explosion for biological investigation must segregated the study from non biological assumptions or its not biological research.
    Whether ID or evolutionists THE whole subject must not pronounce biological truth when its only in comparison to other fossils in separate strata.
    Where is the biology being done here??
    Its just about looking at slabs of rocks with creatures stuck on them !
    It only has relevance to descent by comparing it to other slabs!
    yet the interpretation therefore is only about the slabs of rock in historic position.
    The fossils only show what they show.
    connection to other biology are mere speculation .
    Yet ID and evolutionists both treat these fossils as evidence for biological development.
    Where’s the science here being done on biology?
    can you show me?
    I see just connecting the dots and making great conclusions one way or the other.

Leave a Reply