Originally Posted by: PonyOneOK, here we go.... company time rocks...


from wikipedia:



I guess there's a passage in there that you can't agree with in theory becasue it follows the line of natural selection, which you reject... but... since you're using mutations in defence of your opinion it is valid by proxy. If mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, and occur in DNA, then they can very well be passed down via ones genetics. It's why it is that cancer tends to run in families, as do twins, retardation, freckles, skin tabs, down syndrome, etc. Mutations occur in DNA, and can either add or subtract components from a gene, for better or worse.


Again, see above... first and foremost, the Cambrian Period encompassed 53.7 billion years, from 542 million years ago to 488.3 million years ago. That's a pretty long time...

Again, life is cumulative, retroactive if you will: the more creatures there are to reproduce, the more they will reroduce. And the more that they reproduce, the more their offspring will reproduce. Now within the span of 50 million years, give or take a few, there's a lot of time for life to accumulate. And evidence for the sudden creation of life would be negated (again, if you're gonna use it for your benefiet then by proxy you have to use it when it doesn't work in your favor as well) by the Neoproterozoic peoriod which preceeded it in which fossils were found of creatures drastically different from creatures we know of today. It is widely believed due to fossils found in the earlier Cambrian Strata which had not yet fully formed exoskeletons (or endoskeletons for that matter) that most of the creatures present in the latter Neoproterozoic period were soft-bodied and thus would not leave as many fossils as their bodies would have decayed primarily to nothingness.

And the reason that we get more fossils from the Cambrian period would be that they gradually adapted to their envirnoment, I know that this flies in the face of certain opions but it's well supported by the other examples you've cited.

Break time... I'll continue later.

Hold your horses...Ive got no problem at all with natural selection. Never said I did. Natural selection makes sense. However, it is not adaptation and it is not mutation. Simply differences in the genetic code that by chance work out. "Add or subtract components?" What does that mean? Mutations are always loss of information. There is no addition. An organism has never shown that its gained anything that hasnt already been copied on its genetic code. Thats another problem science encounters because nothing has ever shown to form structures it didnt already have.

I assume that 53.7 bilion is a typo as its actually 53.7 million. Nevertheless, why dont the organisms in the Cambrian strata have any resemblence to those in the precambrian and how are all 7 phylas there? The evolution didnt happen that quick.

Anyways, Im goin out. Ill be back later.