Let us make one thing perfectly clear, the Theory of Evolution through natural selection does not fall or stand with what Charles Darwin could and could not prove at the time. There are many discoveries made after Darwin died and therefore adjustments to the theory were made. Not in the least with the discovery of DNA and RNA. To claim the theory is false because the original creator of that theory didn't get everything 100% right in one go is just a stupid argument.
Furthermore, I really do not understand why creationists take so much effort to disprove the theory of evolution instead of focusing their attention on science and actually doing something some of it to support their claims. What an ancient book says on the topic is no more scientifically valid than me claiming Gus the magic Hippo farted the universe into existence. You need to back up a claim, trying to poke holes in other theories does nothing to support yours.
The Cambrian explosion refers to the quality of the fossil record during the first 30 million years of the Cambrian Period (roughly 570 to 500 million years ago). During that 30-million-year period, mollusks, starfish, arthropods, worms, and chordates (including vertebrates) evolved.
As Prof. Richard Dawkins wote in the Blind Watchmaker: "It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history". I thought I might put the Dawkins quote in myself since creationists love to quote Dawkins out of context. What the creationists don't tell you is that the rest of the chapter Dawkins give examples of pre-Cambrian ancestry.
In an article Dawkins wrote about ID he noted:
The oldest fossilized bacteria date from about 3.5 billion years ago. Two billion years later algae—organisms with cells, a nucleus, and chromosomes—appeared. Marine invertebrates with hard shells and skeletons of chitin or lime are more conducive to fossil preservation than soft-bodied creatures. Perhaps adding to the conditions that were conducive to preserving fossils during the Cambrian Period was the fact that most landmasses on the planet at that time were in the Tropics or the southern hemisphere.
For some reason, creationists think the Cambrian explosion is evidence that counts against evolution but supports their hypothesis that an invisible magical being created species individually.
For more responses to the Cambrian explosion, you can check out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html and http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full
They can also link you to actual peer reviewed scientific pages on the topic and not what a Sherwin or Ham or Hovind claim is science.
Furthermore, I really do not understand why creationists take so much effort to disprove the theory of evolution instead of focusing their attention on science and actually doing something some of it to support their claims. What an ancient book says on the topic is no more scientifically valid than me claiming Gus the magic Hippo farted the universe into existence. You need to back up a claim, trying to poke holes in other theories does nothing to support yours.
The Cambrian explosion refers to the quality of the fossil record during the first 30 million years of the Cambrian Period (roughly 570 to 500 million years ago). During that 30-million-year period, mollusks, starfish, arthropods, worms, and chordates (including vertebrates) evolved.
As Prof. Richard Dawkins wote in the Blind Watchmaker: "It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history". I thought I might put the Dawkins quote in myself since creationists love to quote Dawkins out of context. What the creationists don't tell you is that the rest of the chapter Dawkins give examples of pre-Cambrian ancestry.
In an article Dawkins wrote about ID he noted:
Richard Dawkins Wrote:The "Cambrian Explosion"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/s...s.research
Although the fossil record shows that the first multicellular animals lived about 640m years ago, the diversity of species was low until about 530m years ago. At that time there was a sudden explosion of many diverse marine species, including the first appearance of molluscs, arthropods, echinoderms and vertebrates. "Sudden" here is used in the geological sense; the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m years, which is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most of the great radiations of mammals. This rapid diversification raises fascinating questions; explanations include the evolution of organisms with hard parts (which aid fossilisation), the evolutionary "discovery" of eyes, and the development of new genes that allowed parts of organisms to evolve independently.
The oldest fossilized bacteria date from about 3.5 billion years ago. Two billion years later algae—organisms with cells, a nucleus, and chromosomes—appeared. Marine invertebrates with hard shells and skeletons of chitin or lime are more conducive to fossil preservation than soft-bodied creatures. Perhaps adding to the conditions that were conducive to preserving fossils during the Cambrian Period was the fact that most landmasses on the planet at that time were in the Tropics or the southern hemisphere.
For some reason, creationists think the Cambrian explosion is evidence that counts against evolution but supports their hypothesis that an invisible magical being created species individually.
For more responses to the Cambrian explosion, you can check out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html and http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full
They can also link you to actual peer reviewed scientific pages on the topic and not what a Sherwin or Ham or Hovind claim is science.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
