Let say like, all hard shelled animals that appeared in Cambrian explosion came from this nice spaceship from the planet Prometheus... and that´s why there is no pre cambrian fossils around for them... you could prove our ancestors are extra terrestial.
you would not debunk darwin and natural selection. and actually, there is a good reason to believe that all life came from Mars, so we might actually be extra terrestial.
You blatter and blatter but I fail to see the point. A great scientist who knew darwin doubted him. some techniques used before to date fossil findings have their problems, and???
like this:
”Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleontological equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Pendleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
What are you saying again Stephen? paleontologists have found that there was only a few surviving species from the Ediacaran period, and those survivors formed their OWN phylas, and for some evolutionary reason, different phylas did not resemble each other and did not mix (make babies together).
Does that seem ODD to you???
STEPHEN JAY GOULD seems to be pet for ID evangelists. perhaps because he says
"Yet powerful though the principle may be, natural selection is not the only cause of evolutionary change (and may, in many cases, be overshadowed by other forces). This point needs emphasis because the standard misapplication of evolutionary theory assumes that biological explanation may be equated with devising accounts, often speculative and conjectural in practice, about the adaptive value of any given feature in its original environment (human aggression as good for hunting, music and religion as good for tribal cohesion, for example). Darwin himself strongly emphasized the multifactorial nature of evolutionary change and warned against too exclusive a reliance on natural selection, by placing the following statement in a maximally conspicuous place at the very end of his introduction: "I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."
Note, do not fill in "other means" Intelligent design!!
before that chapter Gould very well explained why cambrian explosion had so few phylas:
"SLAB CONTAINING SPECIMENS of Pteridinium from Namibia shows a prominent organism from the earth's first multicellular fauna, called Ediacaran, which appeared some 600 million years ago. The Ediacaran animals died out before the Cambrian explosion of modern life. These thin, quilted, sheetlike organisms may be ancestral to some modern forms but may also represent a separate and ultimately failed experiment in multicellular life. The history of life tends to move in quick and quirky episodes, rather than by gradual improvement. "
If you read this through you might notice that Darwinian evolution does NOT mean gradual peaceful change over time, it goes on bursts, waves, quirky episodes, like eras, evolving and mass extinting.
good night meyer.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti