nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

I provided that. I specifically showed:1. Arguing that phyla appeared pre-Cambrian is a moot point per debating whether phyla appeared later.....I have had to make that same point several times with no acknowledgement.2. Arguing that only certain phyla appeared early Cambrian as Lith rudely asserts is my claim is likewise wrong because it's not what I stated. Even by his own erroneous list, Lith is just factually wrong.3. Moreover, I even did far more than my detractors have done and I specified multiple sources that state all animal phyla except one that appeared 470 million years ago existed in the Cambrian era.4. I also, despite others not citing any specifics whatsoever except their opinion and vague links to papers not available where Lith's opinions on his list are wrong. He says specific phyla appeared later with no linked papers to back him up, and I gave specific evidence that contradicts his claims.5. I also pointed out that molecular evidence of phyla divergence/appearance, ironically argued by molbiogirl
for phyla emerging pre-Cambrian, supports my arguement and is generally accepted to indicate the phyla that have not fossilized all appeared before 500 million years ago.I have given specific evidence, including links to details of where fossils have been found, and yet Lith and molbiogirl refuse to back up their contentions and ignore the evidence and insist on their false claim that all but 8 phyla appeared after the Cambrian era.I have asked them to be specific about which phyla they claim evolved later. Lith's specifics, as I showed, are factually incorrect. Molbiogirl has thus far refused to answer and list the specific phyla she believes emerged later. Neither have cited specific sources detailing which phyla emerged later. One cited an abstract that is unclear on what their argument is....It appears to me to be arguing sub-phyla should be considered phyla and so does not address my argument.I would like to see you or another admin force them to follow the guidelines and respond, specifically:List the phyla they are claiming emerged after the Cambrian era.Cite specific studies that show that in which we can read and analyze if they are correct.Is that so much to ask for?

My argument is factually correct because I referred to animal phyla specifically to illustrate this point. Once we all accept the facts, which you admit but not some, namely: We can consider whether this pattern holds up for plants. I think it does as we have not had a new plant phyla in what, 150 million years or something like that?

It does work with plants, but considering how difficult it is for some evos to accept and work with basic facts, such as that all but one animal phyla were established by the Cambrian era, and keep them focussed on dealing with the facts and the argument, I thought that would be a good start. It's been difficult, to say the least, just to get you to acknowledge and realize that phyla appearing prior to the Cambrian era isn't germane to the discussion.How long as it has been since any new plant phyla emerged? 150 million years or so? I can't recall off the top of my head, but it certainly has been an incredibly long time....the pattern holds regardless.

Please cite the specific animal phyla you claimed appeared after the Cambrian era, when they appeared, and some evidence to verify your claim. Part of the rules is to back up your statements.Please do so or retract them.

I didn't realize plants were animals.....gee, I must be ill-informed or something.

So you just mispoke when you suggested only 8 had? Or were you deliberate?Perhaps you did not understand my OP when I stated phyla had stopped appearing?Also, why the comment on the "early Cambrian"? Could it be that you realized you were wrong, and so rather than discuss the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian (even though my point rests not on when they appeared but when they stopped appearing), you realized that more than "8 phyla" had appeared in the phyla and so you tried to change the argument to a false claim, suggesting that we were only discussing the early Cambrian era?Do you now acknowledge that more than 8 phyla appeared in the Cambrian era, or not?Thus far, I have provided links detailing scientific opinion that disagrees with your claims. You have provided nothing but your assertion that because you are an invertebrate professor that you are right.Please provide some evidence we can all read to back up your claims.

OK, I will try.....my comment was not really meant to debate you.I just wanted you to see that I've been spending a lot of time providing links to verify a generally accepted opinion on the facts.

You stated: Is that what you were claiming when you wrote this? Now, you are saying this? I don't get it. Did most phyla originate "before or near" the beginning of the Cambrian era, or did only 8?Moreover, what does it matter for my argument if they appeared before, at the beginning or within the Cambrian era? I drew a generous line at 500 million years with only one exception, and I detailed that.Your comments appear to me to be all over the map. Only 8 phyla in the Cambrian era or explosion? Now, most of them?Which one of your posts reflects your current view of the matter?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

So no new plant phyla in over 100 million years but we are dealing with a continual Darwinian process.That really make sense to you?By evo dating standards, it looks like the process is petering out.

If you understood my point, I think you would understand why it's not a refutation of it. Take a stab at it, would you?What is my point? I've stated it a lot so there's no need to restate until I can gather what aspect of it you are not grasping.Also, I asked for animal phyla, not plant phyla.

But there is actually.....but I think more relevant is that you are equating types of organisms which could evolve into the phyla or any stage of evolution that appears to have ceased with people. People die but populations of species may or may not go extinct. Moreover, there are other populations that are similar which presumably could evolve.I'll comment more later, but if'd you take a step back and look at what I am saying, you could get my point as some others here have.

First off, you claimed that only 8 did. That's a big difference betwen saying only 8 had fossils, which isn't true by the way, and that clearly others emerged later, which is what you wrote here: Apparently that was an incorrect statement, right?Secondly, since many phyla have never left fossils at all, I would think you would know that most evo scientists still believe they emerged in the Cambrian era or prior, exactly as I cited. You rudely suggested I was wrong when in reality, I was simply and accurately conveying accepted scientific opinion, an opinion which you apparently accept as well, despite your claims otherwise earlier.Third, let's look at your comment: You DID NOT say we don't know if the 33 emerged then due a lack of fossil evidence, which would also be incorrect. You stated "did not occur." You made a statement of fact without any evidence to support it, and apparently actually knowing the opposite was true, that there is evidence, as you apparently believe, that most animal phyla emerged during or prior to the Cambrian.So let me ask: why did you make an erroneous or seemingly false factual statement to counter my post?Do you now admit that your claim below is a false statement? Note by "false" I mean incorrect, though the fact you said you believed otherwise is puzzling to say the least, but be that as it may, perhaps you just mispoke and you meant to convey, "yes, you are right that it is accepted opinion most animal phyla appeared during the Cambrian era, but we do not have all the fossils to prove it".Is that what you were trying to say?For the papers you cite, could you provide a link to them so we can see if they genuinely say what you say they do?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

So you believed all along, or did you change your view during this thread "that most phyla originated before or near the beginning of the Cambrian"?If you believed all along "most had", why did you insist only 8 had?The most charitable explanation I can think of is that you changed your views as a result of this thread, and the 2nd most charitable I can think is that you simply had forgotten what the evidence and accepted opinion is.Try to look at it from my perspective. You erroneously and rudely suggested I was wrong and that only 8 out of 33 phyla had emerged, and now you admit you believed "most" had emerged by then. Why then did you derail the discussion into such an erroneous claim of a minority of phyla having emerged if you believed otherwise?Why did we spend all this time debating this point if you essentially agreed with me all along?Moreover, in case you do disagree, please state the phyla, and the evidence for it, for phyla emerging later than 500 million years ago or close to it? So? Isn't the point of this thread to examine these facts assuming evo dating methods? Maybe you didn't read the OP carefully? Here is what I stated: Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I understand the evo position here very well. Look at your diagram and notice the linear aspect of it. Why wouldn't the black dot start new lineages, for example?The evo explanation is that the original species evolved out or went extinct. My comment is that similar forms surely exist which have the potential for evolution. Why do we always see, assuming common descent, a burst and then from that point in the line, no more?It doesn't add up. Think about it. Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This really is an absurd false accusation and should not be repeated. It shows an utter lack of comprehension over criticisms of evo models based on the fossil record and is a particularly inflammatory and derogatory remark, imo.