nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

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

Hi Randman,Moderators are no longer having dialogues with members. Please do not respond.I'm putting the onus on you to figure out how to have rational, civil discussions with people you disagree with. If you cannot do this then I will solve the problem by suspending you for longer and longer periods. This is your problem, not mine. I've also put the other people in this thread on notice that they, too, are expected to follow the Forum Guidelines.I've indefinitely suspended a lot of evolutionists over the past couple weeks and just one creationist, so I promise you that any nonsense about my bias will draw an instant response. I have one goal, I have been very consistent about that goal over many years, and that is for this site to host constructive and meaningful discussion on issues related to the creation/evolution debate. If too many threads in which you participate just crumble into fractious discord then you'll be gone.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This took me to the edge of suspending you. Last warning. First suspension will be for 24 hours.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

read it a little more closely. "major explosion" is not exclusive. i did not say that every animal phylum appeared in the cambrian or before. just that this time represents a period of a lot of speciation, and that more division appear here than at any other single point in history. i gave you one 125 mya.

---

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.

they're not. but it's a good example of phyla (possibly even kingdoms) evolving at other times. i'm not sure why you don't understand that this a refutation of your point -- you asked for phyla at other times, and you got them. instead, you'll keep insisting that new ancestors should arise randomly. i don't think you understand how common descent works.as for being ill-informed, i'll leave others to take your flamebait.

---

randman, Annoying, isn't it? Yes, for the, what is is now, the SIXTH time? That makes you a hypocrite, surely, complaining of behaviour you have been guilty of since the threads beginning?An organism belonging to a phylum exists within a monophyletic clade. All of it's descendents must therefore belong to that phylum & that phylum alone. It is an artifact of the classification system not the mode & tempo of evolution that limits new clades of high taxonomic rank.A phylum cannot begat a phylum.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Although that's an interesting late example of a phylum, arach, to say fair to randman, he does specify animal phyla in the O.P.The problem seems to be more that he doesn't seem to understand the classification system, and seems to think that "new phyla" means a dramatic or profound level of evolution that has stopped happening.Your point earlier on about the octopus was a good one in this respect, but such things don't seem to help.

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.

yes. just to echo what mark said, let me use some terms you'll probably understand better:it's been 2500 years now, why are there no new tribes of israel? by religious standards, looks like god has stopped blessing people.now, if you can figure why that statement is nonsense, nonsequitor, and factually incorrect, then you'll figure out why your argument is also those things.

---

Look Rand, as per Percy's warning I am not going to allow you to poke me into saying something to get me banned (I suspect is your intent), although there are many many such things that come to mind.You seem to be incapable of understanding that I BELIEVE that most if not all animal phyla originated before the Cambrian, but the actual fossil evidence is that only 8 did. See the difference? This is just outright slanderous. I hope you someday recognize how nasty this is. This is just outright slanderous. I hope you someday recognize how nasty this is. However, if you looked at my original post to you:

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

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.