Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
EQuestions

Precambrian Rabbits

Recommended Posts

Things just got a bit more hairy.....ummmmm......fishy for the evolutionists. Look what was just discovered in the lower regions of the Cambrian.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13414.html

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/metaspriggina_v089471.html

 

So now we have single cells, plants, *POOF* vertebrates! Evolutionary magic! Things just *poofing* into existence via the mechanisms of mutations and nat sel. Nature really has a way with magic dontcha think?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we have single cells, plants, *POOF* vertebrates! Evolutionary magic! Things just *poofing* into existence via the mechanisms of mutations and nat sel. Nature really has a way with magic dontcha think?

 

 

Or, just making a slightly earlier dating of vertebrates that's still perfectly concordant with the earlier splitting of chordates, and all the diverse other groups such as Echinoderms, Molluscs, Ecdysozoa, Ctenophores etc. that you're carelessly ommiting, and perfectly concordant still with the overall radiation of animals over the vast timescales back then .... many millions of years ... Here's the scheme of Conway Morris 2000 in PNAS.

sgjxqt.jpg

 

Sorry, which year - or moment - exactly was this *POOF* ?? Because from this figure, i'm seeing this *POOF* happening over about 100 million years ... and were still with complex fungi splitting at the base of this figure, not even further back to Cyanobacteria etc,, you've got to go much further back for those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man. You still haven't figured any of this out. I'm guessing another thistle/norman login?

 

So where are the transitionals in the Pre Cambrian for this complete vertebrate again nj?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man. You still haven't figured any of this out. I'm guessing another thistle/norman login?

 

So where are the transitionals in the Pre Cambrian for this complete vertebrate again nj?

Ooh look a picture! That just proves it all! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that the artists rendering has no fins... That's not a fish, it's a fish sandwich! biggrin.png

 

Its funny how much "artistic license" is allowed into artist renderings for evolution ;)

 

Remember the picture for Nebraska man?

 

They got a "human ancestor" and his wife from...

 

 

A single tooth.... A pig tooth in fact 25r30wi.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Jamerson's picture this fully vertebrate fish came into existence somewhere around the 'shelly fossils' and the 'abundant shelly fossils'. That's too funny. Not only that but just below where this fish appears you'll find the Cloudina. What are those you ask? See the pic below. So we have Cloudina, 'shelly fossils' (whatever that means) and then *POOF* fully formed vertebrate fish. Eyes, lungs, fully interconnected internal organs, possibly fins, all kinds of things. These fish look just like Cloudina to Jamerson though. It must have been a transitional to the newly found fish! Jamerson still hasn't actually done his homework on the simple stuff.

 

 

 

100px-Cloudina.svg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Theory of Evolution relies on physical evidence and when new is evidence is found, the theory adjusts to accommodate the new evidence. It's a never ending process with lots of questions with only possible answers .... and that is why scientists continue to tirelessly dig and search for more evidence in sometimes austere and inhospitable locations. That's the difference between knowingly not having all of the answers (and actively searching for them) and already having one's sole-source, absolute truth written in a 4,000 year old book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Theory of Evolution relies on physical evidence and when new is evidence is found, the theory adjusts to accommodate the new evidence. It's a never ending process with lots of questions with only possible answers .... and that is why scientists continue to tirelessly dig and search for more evidence in sometimes austere and inhospitable locations. That's the difference between knowingly not having all of the answers (and actively searching for them) and already having one's sole-source, absolute truth written in a 4,000 year old book.

 

Whatever. I don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Theory of Evolution relies on physical evidence and when new is evidence is found, the theory adjusts to accommodate the new evidence. It's a never ending process with lots of questions with only possible answers .... and that is why scientists continue to tirelessly dig and search for more evidence in sometimes austere and inhospitable locations. That's the difference between knowingly not having all of the answers (and actively searching for them) and already having one's sole-source, absolute truth written in a 4,000 year old book.

 

IF this is the case then why do evolutionists proclaim that evolution (common descent) is a fact... Since that is a declaration that they dp have all the answers since facts are absolute. This isn't limited to the lay-person evolutionist, many scientists (and my lecturers) have stated this, so its not a one-off occurrence.

 

However when scientists do NOT change / debunk their theory, and create ad hoc hypotheses in order to align the theory to the facts then you're looking at pseudo-science... Ad hoc hypotheses are the trade-mark of pseudo-science.

 

Additionally I would question the claim of "evolution is a fact" since there are no facts in scientific theory due to the "fact" (lol) that doing so would destroy the plasticity of science to incorporate new (and perhaps contradictory) data... If the scientists from ages ago stated that the world being the centre of the universe was a "fact", how do you think they would interpret any evidence that contradict this? Well for starters it would be ignored as "anomalies" and such, rather than being investigated in order to further scientific knowledge. Therefore by stating such a thing you are contributing to the "stubbornness" of science in order to accept conflicting data, this issue is not new, and there have been many cases where scientists have thought themselves correct on a particular "fact" and ignore the opposing evidence only to realise later on that they were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What all the Evos need to accept is that the dividing line of Cambrian/Pre-Cambrian is an 'hypothetical' divide 'postulated' by agnostics to explain why they find certain fossils in some deep sediment and other fossils in later sediments when in fact just by shaking a few spoons of fertile garden soil in a glass bottle of water they would instantly see FAST SEDIMENTATION occur within a second of stopping shaking.

If they called that first settled sediment Pre-Cambrian they would be laughed at.

The first sediment would be filled with certain creatures composed mostly of water, and the very last with creatures having swimbladders or lungs and fatty/oily tissue that floated for quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Jamerson's picture this fully vertebrate fish came into existence somewhere around the 'shelly fossils' and the 'abundant shelly fossils'. That's too funny. Not only that but just below where this fish appears you'll find the Cloudina. What are those you ask? See the pic below. So we have Cloudina, 'shelly fossils' (whatever that means) and then *POOF* fully formed vertebrate fish. Eyes, lungs, fully interconnected internal organs, possibly fins, all kinds of things. These fish look just like Cloudina to Jamerson though. It must have been a transitional to the newly found fish! Jamerson still hasn't actually done his homework on the simple stuff.

 

 

 

100px-Cloudina.svg.png

 

Yea this is essentially the fossil transition from non-fish to fish in the Cambrian..

 

These weird sea-lily type animals... (pictured Ernietta)

 

Ernietta.jpg

F1.large.jpg

 

straight to advanced vertebrates...

 

metaspriggina-reconstruction.jpg

 

I guess science is still working on it...

 

 

Evolutionists believe something like this sea squirt larvae eventually turned into a fish.

 

625960e42c48245c3abe0baea2569c87.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't find the hypothesized countless transitions bridging Cambrian body-plans because in all likelihood none ever existed. They remain a phantom of the collective mind of the evolutionist.

 

Instead of the weird data-free mystically morphing animals hypothesis... I think the more likely scenario is that the Cambrian rock layers are simply an accurate representation of a contemporaneous benthic sea-floor ecosystem that was buried together.

 

Except for the prehistoric scuba-diving bunny rabbits, this is basically what we would expect to find in the deepest fossil-bearing rock layers if we posit a globally catastrophic underwater earth-moving geologic event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Theory of Evolution relies on physical evidence and when new is evidence is found, the theory adjusts to accommodate the new evidence. It's a never ending process with lots of questions with only possible answers .... and that is why scientists continue to tirelessly dig and search for more evidence in sometimes austere and inhospitable locations. That's the difference between knowingly not having all of the answers (and actively searching for them) and already having one's sole-source, absolute truth written in a 4,000 year old book.

 

LOL! I could have almost wrote that! I would suggest one alteration to make it more clear to the reader:

 

"The Theory of Evolution relies on physical evidence and when new is evidence is found that falsifies it, the theory adjusts to accommodate the new evidence."

 

As Walter ReMine once aptly quipped, evolution adapts to the evidence like fog adapts the landscape. A "theory" that can accommodate everything is not a theory, its a hypothesis, and in the case of evolution, a failed hypothesis. Evolution continues to demonstrate that it is a religious belief where no data, no evidence will ever overturn it for the hardened believer.

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Evolution is a fact - it is what happens to the human brain when God is accepted as Creator. Suddenly all the lies and nonsense of the Evos is seen for what it is.

Maybe accepting God as Creator reverses whatever negative mental effects He caused Adam and Eve to suffer at The Fall?

Cain was well aware that after he killed Abel he would face the anger and persecution of his other brothers and sisters and their children who were creating their own family/socialgroups/townships?

This would explain why a true believer and real Christian would be totally altered in perceptions, manners, ethics, habits and attitudes to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms