Porkncheese writes:
Advanced life forms from the Cambrian era were discovered all around the world.
What do you mean by advanced? Do you have some examples?
Advanced compared to what?
All around the world implies that they are found everywhere, but actually they are only found in a few scattered localities around the planet. Only a very small percentage of exposed Cambrian rocks contain fossils from the early Cambrian, such as those found in the
Burgess Shales.
ABE: Minnemooseus pointed out an error in my timing for the Burgess Shales Message 12
quote:
I believe, however, that the Burgess Shale is actually middle Cambrian (per Wikipedia- Cambrian=541 to 485.4 mya (million years ago); Burgess Shale=508 mya; I also seem to recall your cite site saying the Burgess was 40 million years into the Cambrian).
Porkncheese writes:
However the findings only served to refute Darwin’s theory as there was no evolutionary species found for the Cambrian animals.
What? What is your definition of evolutionary species?
Species that evolved?
Species that are evolving?
Species that will evolve?
Do you mean transitional species?
Porkncheese writes:
It is clear that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory of a common ancestor but in fact it undoubtedly refutes it.
Since it is clear to you I assume you can support this.
Porkncheese writes:
Yet the Cambrian explosion is not even mentioned in many text books
Well, neither is E=MC^2. Scientists have been complaining about the quality of information in science and math textbooks for decades. Most science textbooks for grades 7-12 in the U.S. are not written by scientists.
If you are trying to blame science for the piss poor quality of primary and high school texts you don't know what you are talking about.
If you want to learn about science there are plenty of good books, popular, as well as college texts, all the way to highly technical books by specialists.
Porkncheese writes:
and when it is mentioned it is not presented as evidence against Darwin’s theory but instead as an event that requires no further justification.
Well, that would be because it is not evidence against Darwin's theory. Textbooks may be crappy, but you wouldn't want them to put in clear lies about science, would you?
I have no idea what you mean by "an event that requires no further justification."
Porkncheese writes:
Similar situations also occur throughout time including the period after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This is where many modern animals, including primates, appear without any evolutionary evidence.
Sadly, you have been completely misinformed. I hope it wasn't by one of those crappy high school texbooks, but there have been many excellent books written about life during the Cretaceous and after the extinction event.
The animals that survived the extinction event and that left descendants and fossils have been studied intently and scientists know a lot about them.
Porkncheese writes:
From observing the fossil data of the pre Cambrian period we should find evidence of evolution
Yep, and we do.
Porkncheese writes:
and a common ancestor as predicted by Darwin.
Well, Darwin didn't get everything correct, but the best thing about science, it builds on what we learned in the past, and tries to correct mistakes in the past.
We realized that it would probably be impossible to look at a fossil of a single celled common ancestor and determine if it was an ancestor or not.
Recently, molecular analysis from living organisms has started to give us data on how they are related. At the same time this may guide us in describing what characters the common ancestor had.
Porkncheese writes:
We find no such evidence therefore, as Darwin himself knew, the theory is falsified.
As I said earlier, you are sadly misinformed. We have abundant evidence of evolution in the past and in the present. The Theory of Evolution itself has evolved a lot in the almost 160 years since
Origin of Species and you are going to have to study the modern theory if you want to falsify it.
Porkncheese writes:
It also fails both criminal and civil legal standards of evidence.
Well, sadly for you, you forgot that you need to present valid evidence to support a case for an alternate theory that explains life better than the Theory of Evolution.
All you did was bumble an attempt to poke holes in a theory that is 160 years out of date. The only way you're going to succeed is with a lot of study.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : Correct dates of Burgess Shales
Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelleing
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
™ Version 4.2
(1)
