Glenn Morton may be well known at home at dinner time, but whatever he claims is not credible evidence. There are over 40 phyla that arose during the Cambrian - none, zero, nada after it. Just because someone has a website does not mean that whatever he writes is evidence of anything. The evidence comes from fossils and the fossils are all in the Cambrian. Further, the evidence keeps piling on against evolution in this regard, a couple of years ago fish with vertebras and eyes were found in the Cambrian. Knowing what we know nowadays about genetics it is absolutely impossible for in the short period covered by the Cambrian for all these phyla to have arisen from totally unrelated phyla. This has not been seen in the entire period after the Cambrian, not a single new phyla has arisen since. To ask us to believe that in 5-10 million years all these evolved from each other is asking for too much gullibility.
How can you say this? Did you even read post 71? Let alone the article I asked you to comment on?
And you "know" this how?
For the record, we "know" of several surviving phyla that appear to have arsien long after the Cambrian. Also, we simply do not know how many "phyla" arose pre-Cambrian as we know only the survivors and those few that left unambiguous fossil records.
There may be many additional survivors we don't yet know about and almost certainly we will discover more pre-Cambiran phyla precursors that got edged out in the competition to survive.
Because...?
There are over 40 phyla that arose during the Cambrian -
Really? Please name them, and provide a citation to your source.
none, zero, nada after it.
Oh really? Then you shouldn't have trouble producing a reference to a Cambrian appearance of any of the following phyla: Ctenophora, Platyhelminthes, Aschelminthes, or Bryozoa. And those are just the animals. After you've answered that, we can move on to the plant phyla you claim first appeared somewhere during the Cambrian.
Just because someone has a website does not mean that whatever he writes is evidence of anything.
Or posters to online political forums.
But that's why he includes citations to a few dozens primary sources which support his information. Go look them up if you don't believe Morton himself.
The evidence comes from fossils and the fossils are all in the Cambrian.
Is it truly your contention that there are no preCambrian or postCambrian fossils?
Show me a Cambrian Bryozoan, please.
Further, the evidence keeps piling on against evolution in this regard, a couple of years ago fish with vertebras and eyes were found in the Cambrian.
Yes, so?
Knowing what we know nowadays about genetics it is absolutely impossible for in the short period covered by the Cambrian for all these phyla to have arisen from totally unrelated phyla.
Who claims that they did?
This has not been seen in the entire period after the Cambrian, not a single new phyla has arisen since.
None, eh? Would you like to stick by that, or shall I refute it?
To ask us to believe that in 5-10 million years all these evolved from each other is asking for too much gullibility.
Yes, which is why science does not assert such a thing.