It came from a scientific journal.
Very unimpressive citation, I guess the Ivies are not what they once were.
On the other hand:
The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
You really should stop trying to refer to things you are clueless about......but that might leave you mute.
The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.
There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about
580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into
colonies.... The
Cambrian explosion, or
Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around
542 million years ago, of most major animal
phyla, as demonstrated in the
fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
a. "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.
Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found
contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.
a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.
Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.
Of..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.
Let me try to explain in unscientific terms using small words. Maybe even someone with little understanding of science might be able to follow.
There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT. The second part of the theory are the mechanisms that fueled the descent. Darwin posed a very simple mechanism but I never defended that mechanism (the reality is probably much more complex). If you had read my posts carefully you'd have known that I never mentioned Darwin, only descent from a common ancestor. I will defend the
fact of descent from a common ancestor but not the work a scientist that did his work 150 years ago.
"There are 2 parts to the theory of evolution. The first is that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. That is a FACT."
Really?
Have any experimental data to support that?
No?
Several recognized scientists claim that life began from 'space garbage.'
You probably never heard of Watson and Crick, discovered the structure of DNA....heard of DNA????
Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book
Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,
Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that
life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
52 [emphasis mine] Crick, p.141
According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
53 Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
The main difference would be that microorganisms should appear here suddenly, without any evidence for prebiotic systems or very primitive organisms... Now, it is perhaps remarkable that these are all features of the early fossil record...
54p. 144
He concludes, "Thus, at the very least one can say that this evidence does not contradict Directed Panspermia but supports it to some extent."
55p.145
The latest update
Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by
Fred Hoyle and
Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.
At select moments in history, and perhaps in the future, these genes, acting like highly sophisticated and autonomous computer programs, "rain gently from space into the environment, each fragment being a small program in itself."
56 Those that survive entry into the atmosphere waft across the planet, eventually coming into contact with one or more pre-established organisms. Upon contact, the new gene reprograms the old organism such that, when the organism reproduces, the organism's offspring will exhibit improvements proportionate to the degree of the genetic upgrade installed by the incoming gene. Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109
Hoyle offers that this conjecture, unlike all previous theories, finally explains
the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Continuing the analogy to computer programming, Hoyle states:
We saw there that intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms. When a computer is upgraded there are no intermediate forms. The new units are wheeled in beside the old computer, the electrical connections are made, the electric power is switched on, and the thing is done.
57[emphasis mine]p.111
Amazing how little you know, isn't it?
