Cambrian

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
My question wasn't about proof of evolution. Darwin virtually said the Cambrian disproved his theory, Darwinism. So are you saying Darwin was wrong about himself? Was he a nut?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot reduce the question to just the Cambrian without doing violence to the issue.

This is about considering all the evidence, not just one slice. Darwin, being honest, accepted that the Cambrian was anomalous, but mountains of other evidence supported evolution.

It's as if I asked you, "doesn't the set of transitional whale fossils prove creationism is false?" And you would rightly say, that's just one section of evidence, we need to look at the forest as well as the trees. The way you constructed your original query sets up your conclusion.

Your OP seemed sensible enough, but now it looks like you are falling into the game of "let's only consider the gaps in the evolutionary record, and none of the affirmative evidence." That's how all the crank theories work -- JFK assassination, 911, Holocaust denial, and creationism.

If one person claims the existence of a mountain, and another shows an altitude measurement from a valley, we do not conclude there is no mountain. We figure out how the valley measurement came to be.

The passage provided by Chezlaw is very appropo, you should consider it carefully.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If one person claims the existence of a mountain, and another shows an altitude measurement from a valley, we do not conclude there is no mountain.


[/ QUOTE ]

What we do conclude is the claim that there is a mountain has no evidence. Try my original question again instead of trying to show that evolution is true.

[ QUOTE ]

Does the Cambrian explosion prove that the fossil record doesn't support Darwinism?


[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the reason why science will always be >>>>>> closed minded people like NotReady


[/ QUOTE ]

Only someone totally close-minded could imagine this gross a non-sequitur.

[niffe9]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't see a contradiction in these two statements?

1. The evidence doesn't fit my theory.
2. My theory isn't disproved.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I just interpreted disproved as probably wrong. As was already stated, it is more important to consider the theory as a whole.
[ QUOTE ]

I didn't say anything about evolution. I asked about Darwinism and the fossil record. And creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.


[/ QUOTE ]
When you say Darwinism, do you not mean evolution by natural selection? I agree that creationism and evolution can be mutually exclusive (in a very limited and non-biblical interpretation of creationism), but I assert that creationism is much more unfounded than evolution in terms of observations, facts, and science.
[ QUOTE ]

It may or may not be an explanation. But if Darwinism isn't supported by the fossil record I don't see how evolution can be anything but a partial explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can evolution not be an explanation? Maybe it's a bad one, or one that is only partial, but again I say that it is the best explanation we have.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

taken from here Seems like a good intro


[/ QUOTE ]

I read it and don't see where he disputes the assertion that the fossil record doesn't support Darwinism.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Try my original question again instead of trying to show that evolution is true.

Does the Cambrian explosion prove that the fossil record doesn't support Darwinism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Address the explanation of why that is not a sensible question.

Now answer my question. Does the fact that OJ had difficulty putting on a glove in a courtroom disprove that he was a murderer? You may not consider other evidence of his guilt.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

When you say Darwinism, do you not mean evolution by natural selection?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, gradual change over long periods of time by natural selection operating on random mutations.

[ QUOTE ]

How can evolution not be an explanation? Maybe it's a bad one, or one that is only partial, but again I say that it is the best explanation we have.


[/ QUOTE ]

If life just pops up with no evidence of Darwinism I think special creation is as logical as an explanation that has no evidence.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Does the fact that OJ had difficulty putting on a glove in a courtroom disprove that he was a murderer? You may not consider other evidence of his guilt.


[/ QUOTE ]


Did Darwin say anything about OJ?

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

taken from here Seems like a good intro


[/ QUOTE ]

I read it and don't see where he disputes the assertion that the fossil record doesn't support Darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The passage explores natural explanations for the Cambrian explosion. It addresses how their could be a spike in speciation. That very precisely addresses the question of whether Cambrian fossils disprove evolution.

Sigh.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does the fact that OJ had difficulty putting on a glove in a courtroom disprove that he was a murderer? You may not consider other evidence of his guilt.


[/ QUOTE ]


Did Darwin say anything about OJ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no inkling of the point I was making.