Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[PoliticalChic]

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see, if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " 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.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!

I dunno. Theories on evolution have changed a bit in 100 plus years.

When I look at what we have done to dogs and corn with selective breeding over 10,000 years the idea of what, 400,000,000 years of random and selective evolution can do does not amaze me.

God might have set it all in motion. Perhaps. I think he/she/it used biological processes not magic. Goes along with all that faith stuff they preached to me.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP....more carefully.

It simply provides evidence that proves that Darwin was wrong.

That's it.

 

[Hollie]

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see, if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " 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.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!

I dunno. Theories on evolution have changed a bit in 100 plus years.

When I look at what we have done to dogs and corn with selective breeding over 10,000 years the idea of what, 400,000,000 years of random and selective evolution can do does not amaze me.

God might have set it all in motion. Perhaps. I think he/she/it used biological processes not magic. Goes along with all that faith stuff they preached to me.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP....more carefully.

It simply provides evidence that proves that Darwin was wrong.

That's it.

You've uncovered a global conspiracy among those atheist evilutionists.

 

[JoeB131]

 

[Toronado3800]

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see, if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " 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.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!

I dunno. Theories on evolution have changed a bit in 100 plus years.

When I look at what we have done to dogs and corn with selective breeding over 10,000 years the idea of what, 400,000,000 years of random and selective evolution can do does not amaze me.

God might have set it all in motion. Perhaps. I think he/she/it used biological processes not magic. Goes along with all that faith stuff they preached to me.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP....more carefully.

It simply provides evidence that proves that Darwin was wrong.

That's it.

I am sure he was wrong about something if that is the gist of things here.

What do you think he was wrong about? All life forms having a common ancestor? Perhaps. Where do viruses come from? The same ancestor of whales? Maybe not. Maybe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see, if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " 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.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!

I dunno. Theories on evolution have changed a bit in 100 plus years.

When I look at what we have done to dogs and corn with selective breeding over 10,000 years the idea of what, 400,000,000 years of random and selective evolution can do does not amaze me.

God might have set it all in motion. Perhaps. I think he/she/it used biological processes not magic. Goes along with all that faith stuff they preached to me.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP....more carefully.

It simply provides evidence that proves that Darwin was wrong.

That's it.

I am sure he was wrong about something if that is the gist of things here.

What do you think he was wrong about? All life forms having a common ancestor? Perhaps. Where do viruses come from? The same ancestor of whales? Maybe not. Maybe.

"What do you think he was wrong about?"

Are you serious???

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....we can see that the fossils show evidence contrary to Darwin's theory.

9. Jump back to an earlier question, from the OP....this one:
" An inquiry into the reason that so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment."



a. Here's a hint:

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities


In this thread one can see the ire from those who cannot brook any criticism of Darwin.




Why is it so very important to accept Darwin, when there is so much clear evidence that his theory was terminally incorrect???



10. The answer requires more than just an acquaintance with science. Those without commensurate knowledge of history and politics will be stymied, and never see the real reason why acceptance of Darwin is de rigueur.



One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



You see, Darwin's theory is less scientific, than political.

Fact.

 

[Hollie]

So....we can see that the fossils show evidence contrary to Darwin's theory.

9. Jump back to an earlier question, from the OP....this one:
" An inquiry into the reason that so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment."



a. Here's a hint:

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities


In this thread one can see the ire from those who cannot brook any criticism of Darwin.




Why is it so very important to accept Darwin, when there is so much clear evidence that his theory was terminally incorrect???



10. The answer requires more than just an acquaintance with science. Those without commensurate knowledge of history and politics will be stymied, and never see the real reason why acceptance of Darwin is de rigueur.



One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



You see, Darwin's theory is less scientific, than political.

Fact.

That's so silly.

 

[DriftingSand]

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see, if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " 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.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!

I'll agree this is just another thread of your edited, parsed and phony "quotes" intended only to promote your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

You science/knowledge loathing zealots are a joke.

Go ahead ... attack the messenger instead of offering a viable argument. Typical Hollie-ism.

 

[Hollie]

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see, if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " 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.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!

I dunno. Theories on evolution have changed a bit in 100 plus years.

When I look at what we have done to dogs and corn with selective breeding over 10,000 years the idea of what, 400,000,000 years of random and selective evolution can do does not amaze me.

God might have set it all in motion. Perhaps. I think he/she/it used biological processes not magic. Goes along with all that faith stuff they preached to me.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP....more carefully.

It simply provides evidence that proves that Darwin was wrong.

That's it.

Stumper Questions for Creationists
What is creationism?

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

• Exposition of creationism.
• Definitions of terms.
• Evidence for creationism.
• Rules of evidence.
• Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.

 

[Hollie]

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see, if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " 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.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!

I'll agree this is just another thread of your edited, parsed and phony "quotes" intended only to promote your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

You science/knowledge loathing zealots are a joke.

Go ahead ... attack the messenger instead of offering a viable argument. Typical Hollie-ism.

"The gawds did it" is not an argument.

Typical comment from a zealot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

here's one

Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Steven_R]

3. "...charlatans such as Meyer and Berlinski."

Both if whom are experts and about whom you have never done anything but slander because you fear their expertise.

Not in biology they aren't. Their backgrounds are in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. The closest either of them comes to being an expert in biology is Berlinski claiming to have spent time working as a molecular biology lab assistant at Columbia without explaining exactly what his duties were.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. "...charlatans such as Meyer and Berlinski."

Both if whom are experts and about whom you have never done anything but slander because you fear their expertise.

Not in biology they aren't. Their backgrounds are in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. The closest either of them comes to being an expert in biology is Berlinski claiming to have spent time working as a molecular biology lab assistant at Columbia without explaining exactly what his duties were.

Were you able to find any error which you could attach to either one?

No?

Well...then you really have no point, do you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

here's one

Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Another post from a moron who hasn't the ability to comprehend the subject...but strives mightily to keep up.

Failed once again.

 

[Steven_R]

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.

 

[DriftingSand]

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
a. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these 'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see, if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " 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.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!

I'll agree this is just another thread of your edited, parsed and phony "quotes" intended only to promote your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

You science/knowledge loathing zealots are a joke.

Go ahead ... attack the messenger instead of offering a viable argument. Typical Hollie-ism.

"The gawds did it" is not an argument.

Typical comment from a zealot.

Still got nuthin' I see. Where did all the matter that fills the universe come from Hollie? Just give us your best GUESS!

 

[JakeStarkey]

here's one

Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Another post from a moron who hasn't the ability to comprehend the subject...but strives mightily to keep up.

Failed once again.

PC your far right weird failed mcarthyism is here only for the grins and chuckles it provides. Your nonsense is the laughing stock of the Board. Even shootspeeders and Edward Baiamonte are held in greater esteem, by maybe five board members, but that is more than you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.

They can't produce such papers because, as PC shows repeatedly, all they have are opinions not conclusive evidence.

 

[DriftingSand]

here's one

Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Another post from a moron who hasn't the ability to comprehend the subject...but strives mightily to keep up.

Failed once again.

PC your far right weird failed mcarthyism is here only for the grins and chuckles it provides. Your nonsense is the laughing stock of the Board. Even shootspeeders and Edward Baiamonte are held in greater esteem, by maybe five board members, but that is more than you.

LOL. NOBODY has failed as much as your Messiah In Chief. You Dems just never learn.

 

[DriftingSand]

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.

They can't produce such papers because, as PC shows repeatedly, all they have are opinions not conclusive evidence.

Nor do secular humanists/evolutionists (like yourself) have any substantial "evidence" pointing toward the origin of the universe and the very first appearance of life. All guesses on your part. Logic dictates that it makes more sense to believe that an intelligent force (God) designed and created the universe (based on its reflection of design) than to believe that *poof* it all appeared by mistake and happenstance. So it makes more sense that SOMETHING created everything than to believe that NOTHING created everything.