Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[PoliticalChic]

This is what happens when you lock someone at home and make them listen to Hate Radio all day.

Oh, my.

One more of those 'I don't like you' posts, revealing a lack of knowledge about the subject under discussion.

BTW...I hate neither Darwin, nor you.

Much like Serious Historians would laugh at your "FDR was a Communist" rants, Serious Biologists would rant at you "Darwin got it Wrong".

You see, the main reason I stopped being a republican was because I could no longer work their increasingly crazy dogma around facts.

You should try the same.

Perhaps you had some other thread in mind...("mind"???)...as your post has nothing to do with this one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalSpice tries really hard to live up to the image that Chinese/Japanese Americans are smarter than average. Unfortunately she is the exception that proves the rule. Her below average intellect is on display whenever she is gullible enough to swallow this kind of junk science. Then again she is gullible enough to believe in religion too so she was definitely shortchanged when it came to her IQ level.

On the positive side she provides a great deal of amusement to all of us at USMB so in that respect she is treasured. Life without her little "term papers" would be less entertaining.

To be absolutely fair, Political Chick is quite intelligent. In fact, I think she suffers from the mental gymnastics of trying to reconcile Conservative Dogma with reality. I can totally sympathize, being an ex-Republican. I was totally there trying the old 'Let's defend Bush while there are bloated floating bodies in NOLA!"

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

 

[JoeB131]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

 

[Hollie]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

And for that matter, why is there a fossil record at all unless possibly, the gods have played a cruel joke on humanity.

Would they intentionally leave massive clues to an ancient planet, a more ancient universe, light years as measurement of time as opposed to a few thousand years?

Those gods, they're such kidders.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

Actually, real scientists are saying just that: Darwin got it totally wrong.

4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.


a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.


b. ... December 4, 1995, Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.


c. Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Details January 2013



As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

For Darwin to have been correct....the early fossils had to have been simpler.


In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

"It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie."

Calm down.

Try to be as precise as I am.

1.The import of the OP is very specific: it opposes Darwin, but says nothing about whether the concept of evolution is correct or incorrect.

2. The Bible is not part of the OP, or anything I've posted.
Bring it up is your attempt to side-step the issue proven by the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

And for that matter, why is there a fossil record at all unless possibly, the gods have played a cruel joke on humanity.

Would they intentionally leave massive clues to an ancient planet, a more ancient universe, light years as measurement of time as opposed to a few thousand years?

Those gods, they're such kidders.

Still can't deal with the OP?

Shocker.

 

[JoeB131]

And for that matter, why is there a fossil record at all unless possibly, the gods have played a cruel joke on humanity.

Would they intentionally leave massive clues to an ancient planet, a more ancient universe, light years as measurement of time as opposed to a few thousand years?

Those gods, they're such kidders.

 

[Hollie]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

And for that matter, why is there a fossil record at all unless possibly, the gods have played a cruel joke on humanity.

Would they intentionally leave massive clues to an ancient planet, a more ancient universe, light years as measurement of time as opposed to a few thousand years?

Those gods, they're such kidders.

Still can't deal with the OP?

Shocker.

FABNAQ

1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?

1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?

1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?

1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)



2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?
3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)



3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)
4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.
5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it couldbe falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?

5a. Is there any observation which has changed your theory?
5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

​

 

[JoeB131]

[

1.The import of the OP is very specific: it opposes Darwin, but says nothing about whether the concept of evolution is correct or incorrect.
P.

So what is your point, exactly? That we have more detailed knowledge than a guy writing in 1844 did?

Sweet Evil Jesus on a Pogo Stick, I hope so.

 

[Hollie]

Battleship beast colossal dinosaur skeleton found in southern Patagonia Science The Guardian

I have it on good authority that the fossil remains of the dinosaur in the link above is a fraud. Those Darwinist Evilutionists were out under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels planting the evidence.

Either that or the Ark tilted over the crest of a wave and the animal fell overboard, couldn't swim and drowned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

1.The import of the OP is very specific: it opposes Darwin, but says nothing about whether the concept of evolution is correct or incorrect.
P.

So what is your point, exactly? That we have more detailed knowledge than a guy writing in 1844 did?

Sweet Evil Jesus on a Pogo Stick, I hope so.

So.....you really can't figure out the point???

Pretty much verifies everything I've always said about you.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So.....you really can't figure out the point???

Pretty much verifies everything I've always said about you.

That you are pretty much one step from being a rambling homeless person? Yeah, we figured that out.

A tip from someone who is paid for his writing. Write like you're being paid by the point and penalized by the word.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

So.....you really can't figure out the point???

Pretty much verifies everything I've always said about you.

That you are pretty much one step from being a rambling homeless person? Yeah, we figured that out.

A tip from someone who is paid for his writing. Write like you're being paid by the point and penalized by the word.

"...we figured that out."
We?
You have a tapeworm?


No....you haven't.... because you would have admitted that my thesis is unassailable.

Everything I've posted is spot on.
And that's why you haven't even tried to claim any errors.

 

[JoeB131]

because you would have admitted that my thesis is unassailable.

Uh, no, I figured they were the ramblings of a crazy person locked in a house all day listening to Hate Radio.

 

[PoliticalChic]

because you would have admitted that my thesis is unassailable.

Uh, no, I figured they were the ramblings of a crazy person locked in a house all day listening to Hate Radio.

See what I mean about you proving yourself to be a dope?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Now...let me interject here, that what I encourage is spirited debate. Unfortunately, there are only two varieties of debate in these threads, and both involve personal animus.


a. There is one nit-wit who keeps chirping that my viewpoint is dictated by religion. Let me point out that there is nothing about religion in these posts.


b. Another dunce claimed the OP was based on 'hate'....all I can see in the OP is a quote by Charles Darwin, Dr. Stephen Meyer, and a study by paleontologist J.Y.Chen of The Chinese Academy of Sciences.

.....

No hate there...just science.




6. Since neither variety of disputer has the background to defend Darwin....I'll point out one sort of possible defense.

So, on what leg should their disputation stand? How about pointing to the "Artifact Hypothesis"?

There is no disputing the fact that evidence shows highly developed organisms where Darwin said there should be none. Darwin knew:

"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




Let me give my opponents a chance to bring up the Artifact Hypothesis.

 

[Hollie]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

Actually, real scientists are saying just that: Darwin got it totally wrong.

4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.


a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.


b. ... December 4, 1995, Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.


c. Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Details January 2013



As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

For Darwin to have been correct....the early fossils had to have been simpler.


In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

Actually, "real scientists" don't

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

Actually, real scientists are saying just that: Darwin got it totally wrong.

4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.


a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.


b. ... December 4, 1995, Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.


c. Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Details January 2013



As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

For Darwin to have been correct....the early fossils had to have been simpler.


In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

Sorry dear, but real scientists don't work at Answers in Genesis or the Disco ' Tute.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

Actually, real scientists are saying just that: Darwin got it totally wrong.

4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.


a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.


b. ... December 4, 1995, Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.


c. Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Details January 2013



As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

For Darwin to have been correct....the early fossils had to have been simpler.


In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

Actually, "real scientists" don't

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

Actually, real scientists are saying just that: Darwin got it totally wrong.

4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.


a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.


b. ... December 4, 1995, Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.


c. Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Details January 2013



As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

For Darwin to have been correct....the early fossils had to have been simpler.


In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

Sorry dear, but real scientists don't work at Answers in Genesis or the Disco ' Tute.

Hey....aren't you proud of your mention in 5 a above?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

Actually, real scientists are saying just that: Darwin got it totally wrong.

4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.


a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.


b. ... December 4, 1995, Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.


c. Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Details January 2013



As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

For Darwin to have been correct....the early fossils had to have been simpler.


In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

Actually, "real scientists" don't

[

"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?

Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting. It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.

Actually, real scientists are saying just that: Darwin got it totally wrong.

4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.


a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.


b. ... December 4, 1995, Time Magazine published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.


c. Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Details January 2013



As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...anatomically they were often even more complex. "

For Darwin to have been correct....the early fossils had to have been simpler.


In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

Sorry dear, but real scientists don't work at Answers in Genesis or the Disco ' Tute.

More real scientists here:
" The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.



Kinda blows you out of the water, huh?