You want to play the numbers game?
No, I'd rather you didn't "play games" of any sort. But I see I'm about to be disappointed.
Well at least I have facts to suppor it:
Astute readers will note that Gore3000 claims to have "facts" to support his claim. In his original post he said that "Science has found" his assertion "over 40 new animal phyla arose during the Cambrian". "Facts", he says. "Science has found", he says. Now look at what he waves around as support: Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.
Hmm... "Some people estimate", do they? Where are the promised "facts"? Where is the docmentation that "science has found" what he says? Instead, we get speculation by unnamed "some people". That's quite a bit... less than he promised, isn't it?
G3K, you really need to learn the difference between "facts" and speculation. You make that same mistake over and over again (usually in the context of mistaking your *own* speculation for "facts").
The important point is that there were a lot.
Oh, well then, ok. "a lot", and that's imporant.
Even more important, there have not been any new animal phyla since the Cambrian (the last missing phyla known at present, vertebrates, were recently found. A fish, with eyes and very much looking like any fish around nowadays).
Please try to make some sense... Since when were vertebrates a "missing phyla" at all (hell, *we're* vertebrates, and I don't think we've ever been "missing", and so were all those dinosaur fossils, so you can't be talking about missing fossils either), much less "the last missing" phyla? And what precisely is a "missing phyla"? What is this, Voodoo Taxonomy?
[As for "arose during the Cambrian", you might want to show your research on *that*]
Now you are really going off the deep end. Aside from sponges and perhaps worms there were no other multi-cellular animals before the Cambrian.
Well first, the point is that neither you nor anyone else has been able to pin down the fossil origins of about a dozen different extant phyla (see the chart I posted), so there's no way to prove *when* they arose. For all we know those originated in the Devonian or later. More to the point, you're just making things up as you go along when you claim to *know* that they originated IN THE CAMBRIAN as opposed to, say, some later era.
And speaking of "going off the deep end", I find it... interesting that you would assert that there were no pre-Cambrian multi-cellular animals "aside from sponges and perhaps worms". Oh, really? How about Cyclomedusa? Neither a worm nor a sponge. How about Eoporpita? Pteridinium? Arkarua? Kimberella? Or good old Spriggina:
Which is that, G3K, a "worm" or a "sponge"? All of the above are precambrian.
In a mere period of less than 10 million years a multitude of completely new life forms appeared
Yes, "appeared" in the current fossil record we have managed to recover. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they necessarily "appeared" on Earth that quickly, for reasons I explained earlier.
Taxa recognized as orders during the (Precambrian-Cambrian) transition chiefly appear without connection to an ancestral clade via a fossil intermediate.
Note the careful scientific wording: "Appear", not "arose" -- the distinction is made between what the few fossils we have *show*, versus any claim that they necessarily *happened* that quickly. Furthermore, the statement is not made that there *is* no intermediate, but only that there is no [currently known] *fossil* intermediate. Don't make the mistake of reading more into that than the author intended.
I did say that no new animal phyla have arisen after the Cambrian
which is yet again a statement of presumption, not fact, as I already pointed out. It's true that we don't *know* that any phyla arose for sure post-Cambrian, but the point is that there are at least a dozen phyla for which we don't know when they arose AT ALL. So your claim that "no" new animal phyla arose in post-Cambrian eras is simply an unsupported, and at the point unsupportable, presumption on your part.
Don't claim to have more knowledge than you actually have.
and that there is no way that evolutionary ancestors can even be postulated for the vast majority of them.
What are you, daft? Of course evolutionary ancestors can be "postulated". Are you sure you understand what the word means?
The most you could possibly support is the statement that for those phyla which *are* known to exist in Cambrian times (which is *not* all of them, contrary to your claim), most of them (*not* all, contrary to your implication) have no obvious ancestor in the *currently known* pre-Cambrian fossil record (which at this time is *extremely* few and far between). So your conclusion from that limited data set would be... what?
Since you admit that only ONE (1) multicellular phyla existed before the Cambrian, my statements are correct by your own admission.
You're hallucinating again, I said nothing of the kind. I *named* one (1) extant pre-Cambrian phyla. I never said there *weren't* any other precambrian animal phyla, and in fact I even posted you a picture of another. Are your glasses fogged up again?
Also let me note here that we are trying to discuss here scientific facts.
Yes we are -- be sure you have some.
This is not a personal issue, it is about the truth and the truth is that the Cambrian is totally unexplainable according to evolutionary theory and totally disproves it.
Don't be a loon. You can't go from the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record to a claim of "truth" that the "Cambrian is totally unexplainable" (um, *which* facts do you allege "prove" this, and *HOW*?) -- in fact, I specifically gave you a scenario that perfectly fits the known evidence (i.e. facts) and which perfectly *explains* the Cambrian appearance of many new animal forms. Sort of "forgot" to refute it, didn't you?
Plus you really go into crank territory when you further stretch your chain of argument to go flying off into a conclusion that the Cambrian/Vendian fossil record somehow "totally disproves" the "evolutionary theory". Sorry, son, but you're hallucinating again.
[Wow, not only are you the only person on the planet who knows for sure *when* all the animal phyla arose, you know exactly *how quickly* they did so! You must be psychic! Or at least delusional.]
As usual, instead of presenting facts showing me to be wrong, you instead insult.
As usual, you totally ignore the facts I present which *do* show you to be wrong. Have you forgotten that chart again so quickly? It quite clearly shows that one can *NOT* make the certain claim, as you have, that "no" animal phyla arose after the Cambrian. Period. You're lying, and I proved it. Furthermore, I quite clearly presented facts which showed that you were hallucinating when you claimed to have "shown" that there was no scenario by which evolution could explain the Cambrian "explosion". Did you refute my points? No, you didn't even bother, did you? So don't give me that pre-rehearsed speech about how I insult "instead" of proving you wrong. I insult you *because* I prove you wrong. Deal with it.
1. you hope to bluff your way out of a fact that contradicts your theory with bluster.
You haven't given any facts that "contradict my theory". The facts you gave are perfectly consistent with "my" theory, as I explained at length in my post, and which you have utterly failed to even attempt to refute. Nice try.
2. you are too lazy and too lame to look at the facts for yourself.
Troll...... When you grow up, come back and try again.
I am not too lazy or too lame to look up the facts, here is support for my statement from the University of Bristol site:
I'm sorry, where does that "support" your statement again? It simply reiterates the point that multiple animal forms "appeared" in the fossil record in a relatively short period of time. You've got a *LONG* way to go before you can work that up into a "disproof" of evolution, boyo.
Remember what I said about making sure you don't confuse your speculations with facts? Well, there you go again.
You cannot measure a distance when all you know is the end point.
You can when you have *two* endpoints, which is how DNA distance analysis works.
DNA analysis of modern phyla cannot give us any such information because we do not know what the DNA of these organisms was some 500 million years ago.
Actually, to a great extent we do, which is he point you fail to grasp.
This is trying to prove evolution by assuming evolution which is total circular reasoning and total bunk.
No, it's not, but I can see why you wouldn't be able to see why. I'm not going to wear myself out trying to educate you, from previous conversations I know your mind is entirely closed.
As to the rest of your talk about the difficulty of dating strata and so forth,
I said nothing of the kind, troll boy. Try to work on your reading comprehension.
well, it seems to me that evolutionisits always tell us that dating techniques are very specific and can tell us almost what day of the week a new species arose (/sarcasm).
Are you done with your non sequitur troll yet?
The research and dating were done by mostly evolutionist paleontologists (are there any others?) so you cannot give us this dating nonsense as an excuse.
Which is why I didn't. Blather much?
Further, the vast majority of these new phyla, which by themselves represent the greatest example of the Cambrian, the Burgess Shale find, is in one place and all the fossils are close in time. It cannot be denied with your obfuscating tactics.
You are invited to point out where, exactly, you have hallucinated that I denied anything about the strata dates.
As I have said before, the evidence is so strong for the sudden arising of all these phyla,
EEERRRNNTTT! The sudden "appearance" in the few fossil strata we have, thank you very much, which is a very different thing from claiming knowledge about he actual speed of "arising". You really *do* need to work on your reading comprehension.
that the famous atheist/materialist/charlatan of evolution S.J. Gould gave up on Darwinian gradualism because of it.
Twaddle. Feel free to quote him to that effect. Oh, wait, you can't, can you? Troll much?
For a thorough and up to date discussion on the Cambrian those interested might check out The Cambrian Explosion - Biology's Big Bang.
AAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA! A creationist screed. I'm sorry, I thought you were going to stick to *science. Sorry, but that work is full of dishonest "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" evasions, all designed to falsely "eliminate" all alternatives but, "God decided to create worms and other primitive stuff half a billion years ago, and then *they* evolved into humans and things".
Are you sure you want to stick with that theory?
Furthermore, it dishonestly "eliminates" the incompleteness of the fossil record by (laughably) presuming that the pre-Cambrian biota were uniformly distributed across the entire globe (false for reasons I gave in my prior post), and that all fossils found so far are a random sample of them (false on its face, we have fossils from only a handful of regions). This is so stupid it hurts. It also (again, dishonestly) fails to address "evolved one place, radiated elsewhere" scenarios of any sort, like the kind I described in detail in my prior post (and which Gore3000 himself dared not address either).
Creationists are *such* poor players at the game of "I've demolished all your arguments (except for all the ones I'll pretend you didn't make)".
They get caught at it every time, I don't know whom they think they're fooling. Themselves, perhaps.