The following is another Secret of Evolutionism.
The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this and other forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?
In answering the question we must ask the question:
Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?
In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.
Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.
The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.
ref. icons of evolution
Secret of Evolutionism
Moderator: Moderators
-
Yarr the Pirate
- Student
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:04 pm
-
Post #11Just for fun, YEC, who was it who examined the molecular phylogeny of annelids and arthropods?
Was it a group of creationists or a group of evolutionary scientists? Just wondering.
What do you have to say about not all phyla appearing in the cambrian, contrary to what you stated?
What do you have to say about the chemical evidence that eukaryotes first apepared 200 million years ago?
What do you have to say to the fact that complex life has been around since before the cambrian?
And of course, what do you have to say to all the other transitional fossils of the cambrian period (note I only mentioned the arhtropods, there are many more such as the development of the trilobites or the non-sea urchin echinoderms)
Care to answer those questions?
Was it a group of creationists or a group of evolutionary scientists? Just wondering.
What do you have to say about not all phyla appearing in the cambrian, contrary to what you stated?
What do you have to say about the chemical evidence that eukaryotes first apepared 200 million years ago?
What do you have to say to the fact that complex life has been around since before the cambrian?
And of course, what do you have to say to all the other transitional fossils of the cambrian period (note I only mentioned the arhtropods, there are many more such as the development of the trilobites or the non-sea urchin echinoderms)
Care to answer those questions?
