Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Make up your mind.

Utterly wrong.The Cambrian, for example, contains no fish, no amphibians, no reptiles, no mammals, no birds ... are those not "different body structures that are in existence today"?However, the phylum Chordata is represented by, for example, Pikia gracilens. Which looked something like this: But my dear Wumpini, it is consistent with both. They both show the deepest taxonomic divisions occurring in the earliest times, and since the record for those times is so sparse, it could scarcely distinguish between them. Your information is sixty years out of date and counting.It is not difficult to find out about Precambrian fauna, I suggest that you do so.---You are familiar with neither the terms you are using, nor with the subject matter under discussion. I am not surprised that creationists find it easy to bamboozle you with this stuff. But this is no reason why science teachers, who should know better, should be required to bamboozle children.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And this is not true. Because birds, for example, have a common "body structure" which does not appear in the Cambrian. Huh?By a little process we call "evolution". One species splits off from another species. Look at the diagrams.When it happens, the production of phyla looks like speciation (which it is) there's nothing special about it except in retrospect. The fossils are too scanty to trace any particular line of descent, but there are certainly fairly undifferentiated bilaterians in the Precambrian. To go better than that, we require the techniques of molecular phylogeny. ... and all those scientists who've spent their lifetimes studying a subject of which you have just begun to scratch the surface based on your acquaintance with inaccurate children's textbooks. They are being taught lots of things as scientific fact that are not supported in the fossil record. Such as that the Sun is hot. The fossil record also does not contradict the "tree of life". The fact that it does not allow us to confirm every detail of it from the fossils alone would be of significance only if the tree of life was meant to be constructed based on the fossils alone, rather than on all the evidence, such as morphology and genetics.By pretending that it is, or that it should be, based on only a proportion, sometimes quite a small proportion, of the evidence, creationists have managed to obscure their own understanding of biology, without, of course, making the slightest impression on scientists, who know better.If we were to draw the tree of life based solely on fossils, we should have to leave off entirely at least seven (I'm still counting) of the 36 living animal phyla, because there are no fossils of these phyla, in the Cambrian or anywhere else!Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.