”For example, any bilaterian that manifests the characteristic exoskeleton of, say, an arthropod cannot also qualify as a plausible ancestor of a chordate, because chordates have internal skeletons or notochords. The logic of these distinct body designs precludes sharing both anatomical characteristics. For this reason, any hypothetical bilaterian common ancestor could only have existed as a kind of lowest anatomical common denominator, or what evolutionary biologists call a “ground plan,” having only those few features that are common to all of the animal forms that allegedly evolved from it."
WAIT... you are saying that there is no way that Antropods with an exoskeleton, could have a common ancestor with chordates with internal skeleton because... I have to read that chapter again...
”Yet the gradual evolutionary origin of these characteristics is not documented in the Precambrian fossil record. These characteristics do not appear until they arise suddenly in the Cambrian explosion.”
so it is impossible because "these characteristics appear on Cambrian era"???
Cambrian era is a time quite different from Ediacaran era. Oxygenation was strong, a lot more oxygen was in the air and in the seas, so larger and more complex animal forms could evolve.
Typical Ediacaran animal was soft. As planet warmed and oxygenated, it is quite possible that one bilateral specie adapted to GREAT changes of the era and divided into 2 species, one with exoskeleton and another with internal skeleton. Nothing in the Darwinian evolution theory forbids this. And normally, if something is not spesifically forbidden by natural laws, it tends to happen at some point.
(like quantum theory states that nothingness is unstable, therefore universe HAD to begin. and nothing in the laws of nature forbids formation of life, so it had to happen somewhere. obviously this is the planet we live in.)
so how old is the oldest Bilateral animal found?
"Scientists have reported that bilateral animals appeared 600 million years ago, about 50 million years before the Cambrian Explosion."
And... about all the animals that dominated the Cambrian explosion were bilateral... in 50 million years they diversed to not only to severan species, but to several phyla´s also. One phyla developed an exoskeleton and got so big advantage that it started to wipe out competition. Another phyla developed internal skeleton and got so big advantage that it did not get wiped out.
Does Stephen have any idea that if you find a bilateral fossil 50 million before cambrian explosion and the animals that dominated Cambrian explosion, it really proves they have common ancestry?? it simply debunks your smoke and mirror tactics that you spend pages and pages explaining like any good polititian that is not really saying anything.
great stephen.
”As Graham Budd and Sören Jensen state, “The known [Precambrian/Cambrian] fossil record has not been misunderstood, and there are no convincing bilaterian candidates known from the fossil record until just before the beginning of the Cambrian (c. 543 Ma)” Stephen C. Meyer.
Well stephen, your research is OLD. any sofa scientist can do better research than you.
I think it´s a lot harder to find evidence that proves evolution wrong than to find evidence that proves it right, BECAUSE IT IS TRUE! you silly boy.
”The exhibit also made it clear that the Ediacaran fossils went extinct at the end of the pre-Cambrian, so (with a few possible exceptions) they could not have been ancestral to the Cambrian phyla”
I assume this is your OPINION, because it clearly is FALSE.
Snails survived extintion, several bilaterals survived. it is clear that MOST animals died, that´s what people mean with genocide, but naturally not all died, or you would not be here, you are a proof that you are wrong stephen!
”The artificiality of the branch points emphasized that the branching-tree pattern imposed on the fossil evidence was itself an artificial construct.”
Of course the tree of life is an artificial contruct to explain the relativity of different species, it makes understanding easier. Clearly it failed to make you understand. All scientist say there are holes in the tree, but the gaps are getting smaller and smaller all the time. when even a fossil is found, it always fits to the tree, always. got it?
”the museum that had sponsored the lecture denying Darwin’s Cambrian dilemma itself has an excellent display indicating that the expected ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals—the very ones that Darwin hoped to find a hundred and fifty years ago—are still missing from the Precambrian fossil record.”
Do you know you are lying, or are you just an idiot? I do not think you are an idiot, so you must be ling on purpose, you are paid to do that.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti