Re: Stereotypes and reputations

Before we can discuss causes of the rapid appearance of life forms at the base of the Cambrian, there is a far more fundamental question.

The evidence for this explosion is geological - painstaking geological and stratigraphic work which began with the great evangelical geologist Adam Sedgwick on August 22nd 1831, the day after Darwin left him to go shooting and got a Beagle instead!

What this shows is that about 550 m.y.(+-) there was this rapid appearance over a few million years.

What concerns me is that many who bring this up as a Darwin-stopper don't accept the geological timescale and either believe in a young earth or don't think it matters. One cant discuss like that as it is like say that it doesn't matter whether Columbus found "America" in 1492, 1066 or 1945.

A question for Cornelius , are you certain that the base of the Cambrian is about 550 my or are you like Paul Nelson and Nancy Pearcy a believer in a young earth or like many in ID who don't think it matters?

It is essential to get the chronology and historical sequence of the Cambrian event clear before we can begin to explain it.

Too often the Cambrian damp squib is presented as the ultimate evolution problem by many who don't accept the time scale.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Cornelius Hunter
  To: Pim van Meurs
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:42 AM
  Subject: Re: Stereotypes and reputations

  Pim:

  The fossil data from the Cambrian Explosion shows a morphological explosion. You may appeal to what we may find out someday. That is not falsifiable. But the data that we have in hand right now indicates a morphological explosion which is not consistent with evolution. Nor is it consistent with common descent unless your version of common descent involves pulling rabbits out of hats. A friend of mine took a university biology course. After the "evidences for evolution" lectures he spoke with the professor, asking about all the weaknesses. The professor responded that the evidence would be clarified in the future. You write:

   
Received on Sun Jul 31 18:00:31 2005