Actually it is quite easy to tell you are an evolutionist from the posting of this thread. Evolutionists cannot find any evidence for their position so they keep posting just so stories like this one that has no facts, no evidence, but says that evolution has been proven again.
Scientific predictions are made either about things which may occur in the future or things that have never been observed. This is neither, this is a story about something which has been observed and is already known. It is not a prediction, it is not science, it is an attempt to cover up the fact that the Cambrian explosion completely destroys the theory of evolution as the evolutionists Gould and Eldredge claimed.
Whoa, that's a new one on me! Where did Gould & Eldredge ever claim that the Cambrian explosion "completely destroys the theory of evolution"? Cite, please. (Pretty please.)
Fine, so we'll throw Gould and Eldredge to the wolves. Gould is dead, anyway, he won't care.
So, here we are in the Cambrian, new life forms everywhere - regardless of where they came from - and then they evolve.
Because, most of the life forms on earth today weren't around in the Cambrian. Agreed?
Actually it is quite easy to tell you are an evolutionist from the posting of this thread.Very poor assumption, which is staggering to see you make after I pretty much told you it would be a mistake to do.
I went to google news. I typed in evolution. Got one. Posted it. I went back to google. I typed in creationism. Got one. Posted it. So unless google works like my Magic 8 Ball on my desk, and could sense what my views are when it returned those two stories, there was nothing to tell from the choice of stories.
(I left out a step. I checked for duplicates before posting).
On both, I gave the same warnings. No flame wars, no baiting. And on both, I said it would be wrong to figure out my views from posting it.
I think I am getting a feel for what the problem is on these threads though. People drag things from old threads over. People make assumptions of the motives and views of others. People add insults into responses, just to try to get the goat of someone else; they may not be big insults but just little digs.
And people are not taking the hint that they are skating on thin ice.
Well, they are.
Care to comment on Glenn Morton's masterful examination of the Cambrian "explosion" claim, where he documents all the major phyla that are known to have developed before the Cambrian?
If one considers the Vendian/Cambrian animals as constituting the Cambrian Explosion, then we have 13 phyla appearing in the Cambrian Explosion and 20 AFTER the Cambrian Explosion. While one can assume that the 13 phyla which have no fossil record arose in the Cambrian, assumptions are NOT data. The plain fact is that the Cambrian Explosion doesn't even represent the majority of the phyla. Will these other phyla be found in the Cambrian? Maybe. But one can't rationally assume what the future holds in order to argue to his case.
And if one adds the plant phyla which appear after the Cambrian (why plant phyla should be excluded as Ray seems to imply is beyond me. They ARE phyla after all (Bohlin, 2001, p. 138)), one gets the following chart.
Period # total phyla which appear in period
Recent 13
Eocene 2
Cretaceous 2
Jurassic 1
Triassic 3
Carboniferous 5
Devonian 4
Silurian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4
(same note as above concerning phyla in the Vendian)
This yields Cambrian Explosion 13, Post-Cambrian 32! Sounds like a football score! And given that 13 phyla first appear within the past 10,000 years (having no fossil record) one could, if one wanted, claim that we are in another explosion. I wouldn't make that claim but it would fit within the data. To claim that all or even the majority of animal phyla appear in the Cambrian is demonstrably FALSE yet the claim is blindly made being repeated endlessly by apologist to apologist with no one even questioning the validity of the statement.
I'm confused -- if we "can't find any evidence" for our position, how do we keep posting the evidence? For example, I know we've posted this to you at least a dozen times now (in response to the many times you've asserted that there was "no" evidence): 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
so they keep posting just so stories like this one that has no facts, no evidence, but says that evolution has been proven again.
Okay, I'll bite -- where does the above article "say that evolution has been proven again"?
Scientific predictions are made either about things which may occur in the future or things that have never been observed. This is neither, this is a story about something which has been observed and is already known. It is not a prediction, it is not science,
Where does it purport to be a "prediction"?
It's an announcement of a model which incorporates known processes and conditions to accurately match known historical transitions.
it is an attempt to cover up the fact that the Cambrian explosion completely destroys the theory of evolution as the evolutionists Gould and Eldredge claimed.
You're being unclear here -- are you claiming that Gould and Eldredge a) claimed that the Cambrian explosion destroys the theory of evolution, or b) their claims about the theory of evolution were allegedly destroyed by the Cambrian explosion?
Either way your claim would be incorrect, but I'd rather not spend time refuting the wrong one. So let me know which you meant and then I'll refute it.