The 'Bestiary': The Burgess Shale

[PoliticalChic]

So, you believe Darwin's theory of evolution?

With the exception of the fanatics, and anti-religion zealots, it is actually fairly simple to prove to other folks that the theory isn't true....or at least can't be more than fractionally true.

First, 'evolving' suggests changing, in this case from the simple to the more advanced and complex organism. Outside of the kind of simple faith of peasants, science requires physical proof...in this sphere, that of the fossil record.
Evolution theory, sadly, falls short in that respect.

The following is specific proof of what I have just stated.




1. Charles Doolittle Walcott was an American invertebrate paleontologist.[1] He became known for his discovery in 1909 of well-preserved fossils in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, Canada.
Charles Doolittle Walcott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Already director of the Smithsonian Institute, he is remembered today for the most dramatic discovery in the history of paleontology, a treasure of middle-Cambrian fossils, many previously unknown animal forms. The detail found was remarkable, proving a far greater diversity of biological form and architecture than had been previously imagined!

2. Walcott's team collected some 65,000 specimens, many so bizarre that paleontologists would spend over half a century trying to place them in their proper categories.

a. As an example, Marrella, a 'lace crab' that Walcott described as a kind of trilobite. Later study re-classified it not as a trilobite, nor even a crustacean....but as a fundamentally distinct form of arthropod: it had 26 segments, each with a jointed leg for walking and a feathery gill branch for swimming. The head shield has two long spikes directed backwards, and the underside of the head has two pairs of antennae, one pair short and fat, the other pair long and sweeping. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie and An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

b. Pictures of Marrella splendens here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Mar...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8





3. One more? Hallucigenia belongs to a genus and family of one.
" Hallucigenia is a genus of Cambrian animals known from articulated fossils in exceptional Burgess Shale-type deposits in Canada and China, and from isolated spines around the world. Its quirky name reflects its unusual appearance and eccentric history of study; when it was erected as a genus, the animal was reconstructed upside down and back to front. Hallucigenia is now recognized as a "lobopodian worm" and is considered to represent an early ancestor of the living velvet worms, close relatives of arthropods." Hallucigenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paleontologists actually refused to believe what they were seeing at first, thus the interesting name given.





4. The name "Cambrian explosion" became common coin, because Walcott's site proved the geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as found in even the barroom scene of Star Wars.


How, then, does this fit with Darwin's theory of gradual change which would be indicated by innumerable false starts and biological dead ends, indicating failures of random alterations?

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian?
Note how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics. And why it is ignored.
Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.
In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.




a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?




b. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



So....if the above is proof of an idea that leaves Darwin in a pickle......

...And, why this:
"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

Based on the OP...the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education is lying.


Now....why is that?
I can answer it.....can you?

 

[Alfalfa]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

Not at all.

It is a science thread that tears a big hole in Darwin's theory of evolution.



Unless some devotee of the propaganda cares to debate same.....

 

[Spoonman]

i believe we evolve and change. i don't believe all life evolved from the same original single celled organism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's not lose sight of the premise, here.

The 'evolutionary novelties,' i.e., the new anatomical structures and methods of organization that are suddenly prevalent in the Cambrian animals are the undeniable facts of the fossil record.

Facts.


If one is set on Darwin's theory of evolution....then, said facts require explanation.

 

[Moonglow]

Not again. Did you not get satisfied with the last one?

 

[Moonglow]

Creationism is not a science that has been proven either.

 

[Alfalfa]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

Not at all.

It is a science thread that tears a big hole in Darwin's theory of evolution.



Unless some devotee of the propaganda cares to debate same.....

It does no such thing. The Cambrian period alone was over 50 million years long and the pre-cambrian, where many of these species evolved, was over 100 million.

You need to stop getting your info from the discovery institute.

 

[Moonglow]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

Not at all.

It is a science thread that tears a big hole in Darwin's theory of evolution.



Unless some devotee of the propaganda cares to debate same.....

It does no such thing. The Cambrian period alone was over 50 million years long and the pre-cambrian, where many of these species evolved, was over 100 million.

You need to stop getting your info from the discovery institute.

The earth is flat. Do you not know this!?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Creationism is not a science that has been proven either.

This OP was not about Creationism......simply provided proof that Darwinian evolution is not scientific, in that it has on proof, is not testable, and has data as in the OP that runs counter to it.

Assuming that you are articulate, and write what you mean...."Creationism is not a science that has been proven either."....

...the "either" refers to Darwin's theory.

In which case, I agree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

Not at all.

It is a science thread that tears a big hole in Darwin's theory of evolution.



Unless some devotee of the propaganda cares to debate same.....

It does no such thing. The Cambrian period alone was over 50 million years long and the pre-cambrian, where many of these species evolved, was over 100 million.

You need to stop getting your info from the discovery institute.

My information, as always, is accurate and correct.

1. Darwin's theory requires gradual changes built on organisms that already exist.

2. The 'Cambrian explosion' provides fossil proof of organisms that are totally different than those existing previously.

3. You, clearly, have no understanding of either of the above.

Notice the links provided do not include "the discovery institute."



Of course, you can try to dispute the two examples that I give in the OP.....

...if you dare.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not at all.

It is a science thread that tears a big hole in Darwin's theory of evolution.



Unless some devotee of the propaganda cares to debate same.....

It does no such thing. The Cambrian period alone was over 50 million years long and the pre-cambrian, where many of these species evolved, was over 100 million.

You need to stop getting your info from the discovery institute.

The earth is flat. Do you not know this!?

A classic deflection.

Didn't I provide enough facts for you to challenge?

Can't?

 

[Moonglow]

Of course Darwin's theory was weak and full of holes. What do you expect for a hypothesis to be stated with faulty facts on nature by short termed observation.

 

[Alfalfa]

Not at all.

It is a science thread that tears a big hole in Darwin's theory of evolution.



Unless some devotee of the propaganda cares to debate same.....

It does no such thing. The Cambrian period alone was over 50 million years long and the pre-cambrian, where many of these species evolved, was over 100 million.

You need to stop getting your info from the discovery institute.

My information, as always, is accurate and correct.

1. Darwin's theory requires gradual changes built on organisms that already exist.

2. The 'Cambrian explosion' provides fossil proof of organisms that are totally different than those existing previously.

3. You, clearly, have no understanding of either of the above.

Notice the links provided do not include "the discovery institute."



Of course, you can try to dispute the two examples that I give in the OP.....

...if you dare.

The premise of your argument is there wasn't enough time for these species to develop and evolve. One can only accept that if one believes 150-250 million years is a "short period of time".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course Darwin's theory was weak and full of holes. What do you expect for a hypothesis to be stated with faulty facts on nature by short termed observation.

"...a hypothesis to be stated with faulty facts on nature by short termed observation."

What do you mean by 'short termed observation'?

Darwin published in 1859.


Let's take a trip down memory lane"

1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210



2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



So....what do you mean to say?

Simply that you're willing to accept no evidence for the theory?

Or that you are questioning it's veracity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It does no such thing. The Cambrian period alone was over 50 million years long and the pre-cambrian, where many of these species evolved, was over 100 million.

You need to stop getting your info from the discovery institute.

My information, as always, is accurate and correct.

1. Darwin's theory requires gradual changes built on organisms that already exist.

2. The 'Cambrian explosion' provides fossil proof of organisms that are totally different than those existing previously.

3. You, clearly, have no understanding of either of the above.

Notice the links provided do not include "the discovery institute."



Of course, you can try to dispute the two examples that I give in the OP.....

...if you dare.

The premise of your argument is there wasn't enough time for these species to develop and evolve. One can only accept that if one believes 150-250 million years is a "short period of time".

No, the premise is very clear in the OP.

For Darwin to be correct, the fossil record has to show attempts at the amazing new body plans and modes of organization found in the Cambrian explosion.

It does not.

Darwin admitted that.....why not you?


Darwin wrote:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164


The above remains true to this day.

 

[PainefulTruth]

This OP was not about Creationism

But you're only point is "proving" creationism. You must not only throw out the fossil record as happening over a mere 10,000 years, you have to discount geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology etc. Creationism is the Achilles Heel of all fundamentalist "science". It junks reason and the scientific method and heeds only circular blind faith.

Your only real point is that we don't have a complete fossil record, that there are gaps. But science can show that thousands/millions of species have appeared, lasted for millions of years, and gone--many species overlapping and extending the record for hundreds of millions to billions of years.

I concede that we don't have a complete fossil record from the first protozoa to now, and probably never will. But the fossil/geologic record we do have disproves Creationism in a walk. The problem is that Creationists take the Bible and try to prove it, instead of looking at the evidence to see what possibilities that indicates.

Those who insist on faith, cannot rely on science. There is no scientific evidence, or even a well documented occurrence, of a supernatural event. God (if It exists) created it that way so we can have a rational environment where we can make rational moral choices.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This OP was not about Creationism

But you're only point is "proving" creationism. You must not only throw out the fossil record as happening over a mere 10,000 year, you have to discount other geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology etc. Creationism is the Achilles Heel of all fundamentalist "science". It junks reason and the scientific method and heeds only circular blind faith.

Your only real point is that we don't have a complete fossil record, that there are gaps. But science can show that thousands/millions of species have appeared, lasted for millions of years, and gone--many species overlapping and extending the record for hundreds of millions to billions of years.

I concede that we don't have a complete fossil record from the first protozoa to now, and probably never will. But the fossil/geologic record we do have disproves Creationism in a walk. The problem is that Creationists take the Bible and try to prove it, instead of looking at the evidence to see what possibilities that indicates.

Those who insist on faith, cannot rely on science. There is no scientific evidence, or even a well documented occurrence, of a supernatural event. God (if It exists) created it that way so we can have a rational environment where we can make rational moral choices.

Let's be clear.

I believe in science.

Science is based on evidence. Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darwin's theory is elegant. The logic, even without physical evidence, is unassailable.
But it is not science...it is conjecture and consensus.

....there are now two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


My point: if Darwin is science that you will accept, then all the other philosophical discussions of how organisms arose must also be accepted.
All of them are based on faith....as is Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

Nope. This is thread number 7 or 8 where PC cuts and pastes phony, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes", mined from Harun Yahya.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

Nope. This is thread number 7 or 8 where PC cuts and pastes phony, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes", mined from Harun Yahya.

And you still have been unable to answer the premise.


My poor sad friend, the question at hand requires more than you are capable of. I was hoping that someone more...astute...than you would grapple with the facts than need be explained. But thank you for coming by.