>The claim that the absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence is in
>fact a logical fallacy called the appeal from ignorance (a particular
>proposition is false because it has not been proved true). To claim, or
>even suggest, that the Cambrian lifeforms could not have evolved because no
>has yet found fossilized ancestors is to engage in this fallacy. What I
>would like to know is, are there any theoretical reasons why there cannot be
>any Cambrian ancestors and what evidence do have (other than a lack of
>fossils) that supports these reasons?
How much evidence do we have for extraterrestrials? for purple people
eaters? for men on mars? Do you think they are there? At some point the lack of
evidence does influence you in your thinking (unless I miss my guess). At
But the issue is that there is a claim that Cambrian life could not have evolved based on a lack of fossilized ancestors. There is more evidence for Cambrian life than for purple people eaters and for evolution being the guiding mechanism.