AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
Yes, evolution is built upon the assumption that abiogenesis is true-Darwin, as well as modern rabid atheists, want to explain life as it is found using naturalistic explanations, as august has said, Darwin was an atheist, or at best an agnostic, so there is no reason to assume that Darwin thought "God started the first life, and it evolved and went on from there"...I can't quote like August, but Darwin, in his Origin of Species, cooks up a nice little story, along the lines of "you know, life could have come about in some warm pond that had an electric current and was full of organic material"
So what if Darwin was an athiest evolution is not based on him, in fact its not even based on a person at all. Also speculating on the origins of life may offend you but it has nothing to do with evolution.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:No, no, no...almost all phylums of animal life appears IN the Cambrian explosion, not after.
Do you even know what a phylum is? Its an arbitrary division of organisms based on phenotypic and supposed genetic relationships. In other words so what if the phylum arthropoda was present. The representatives of that phylum were primative forms and distinct from todays crabs lobsters and dragonflies. And most phylums present in the Cambrian period existed before the "Cambrian explosion".
Which then begs the question...how was this life alien to life we see today? Since many of the lifeforms found in the explosion EXIST today!
The bodyplan exists, the forms are not the same here are some picture of the burgess shale creatures.
arthropod
modern shrimp
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/b ... s/bs02.jpgparasitic worm
http://www.bio.ilstu.edu/armstrong/crtr ... etworm.jpgmodern velvet worm
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/b ... s/bs07.jpgpikaia of the phylum chordata.
frog also chordata.
As you can clearly see the burges shale representative of chordata does not resemble the frog physically only in body plan.
Also, what if all life wasn't found there? I dont' see your point? So what if humans aren't found there...my point is, it is not possible that there was enough time for so many new forms of life to pop up, so different from each other,
The Cambrian explosion occurred over 53 million years. Not exactly a short period. Also this period was charachterized by rapid diversification not rapid increase in complexity.
with no link to any simpler forms of life that they could have evolved for.
Are you so sure?
Check out the Vendian period.
And, remember, all forms of life wouldn't have been created that far back-you wouldn't have found humans.
So where did the new life forms including humans come from?
And, when you throw Michael Behe into the fray, you have a bigger smaller problem-the evolution of a myriad of biochemical irreducibly complex machinery. It's all fun and games when you're making a story about evolution on the scale of gross anatomy...but when you peek under the surface, at the molecular building blocks...you have a problem. For example, Dawkins, as well as Darwin, draws up a vague story of how an eye could have evolved from a light sensitive spot...BUT, they only talk on the level of gross anatomy, but Behe continues on and says that even at the stage of light sensitive spot, you have complexity, and as the two evolutionists go along in their story, they gloss over a myriad of problems on the level of molecules. Which is what you just did.
Not true at all actually when going into the level of molucules one can create drastic morphological changes with the tiniest of modification to the chemical and genetic makeup of an organism. Not the other way around. I wish to continue focus on the physical evidence because chemistry is much more advanced and we have yet to conclude the simpler matter.
.
