Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
53 online now:
jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), scoff, Tangle (5 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,689 Year: 9,437/23,288 Month: 452/1,544 Week: 166/561 Day: 6/63 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
Inactive Member

Message 122 of 141 (17650)
09-18-2002 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Bart007
09-17-2002 2:38 AM

What a very strange posting this is by Bart.

Originally posted by Bart007:

You are correct that Linnean classification provided the 33 or so Phyla based upon observation of the different basic bauplanes (i.e. body planes) of extant animals.

So far so good.


Unfortunately, you abandon science to pursue the special pleading type arguments of a dogmatic evolutionists who are also rabid anti-creationists.

Not a lot of evidence to offer in support of this statement.


I see you seek to persuade me with the great works of Glenn R. Morton, a dogmatic evolutionist and anti-creationists. Where does he get his information on Phyla? He says it is from Berkeley University.

Try as I might, I have not found a reference to Glenn R. Morton elsewhere on this thread. And certainly Quetzal doesn't refer to Morton in his message.


Glen writes: "Berkeley has posted an interesting display of when the various phyla appear. It can be found at


Yes he does, in http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm
Pity Bart didn't provide a link to the Morton webarticle which he seems to be referring to and disputing.


But when we go to that web page, we discover it is not an official document from Berkeley, rather, it is a web page of a student attending Berkeley, Ben Waggoner.

Perhaps Bart should have done his homework better. The page is at University of California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontotology. It looks to be quite official. Ben Waggoner appears to have been a PhD student at UC and was granted his doctorate in integrative biology by UC in 1998. He also has been multiply published in the field of invertebrate palaeontology.

See http://faculty.uca.edu/~benw/benwcv.htm

So, Bart's representation of Waggoner, his status as a student and of the webpage appears to be inaccurate.


Even so, Glenn misrepresents Ben's web page, for Ben writes of his own chart:

"The chart above shows the oldest undoubted fossil occurences of each of the living major groups of animals. Note how many of the animal groups have fossil records that date back to the Cambrian period, over 500 million years ago. Those groups which do not date back to the Cambrian, with the single exception of the Bryozoa, do not possess mineralized skeletons. It is likely that all major animal groups, even those which have not left us fossils, originated in the Cambrian. This sudden appearance of many major groups of animals is often referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion"."

It's rather difficult to make a judgement if Bart doesn't give us what Morton says to allow a comparison.

BTW, Glenn readily admits that the experts, the scientists who have obtained, examined, discussed and published in their peer reviewed journals, the scientific data of on Cambrian Phyla, that 32 of 33 Linnean classifications of Phyla of extant metazoans are found in the Cambrian explosion. He amazingly chooses to ignore them and even his primary source, Ben Waggoner, who ultimately agrees with the Paleontologists. [/qoute]

Where is the Morton text to allow comparison?


There have been estimates of up to 84 Phyla that appear in the Vendian/Cambrian period. Many have become extinct. Since the Cambrian era, not one new bauplane (i.e. Phyla) has arose.



It is not I who misunderstands. In fact, I understand all too well. YSome evolutionists prefer the special pleadings of a dogmatic evolutionists like Glenn Morton, who happened to be engaged in a crusade against creationists, over accepting the actual scientific findings.

Obviously Morton is hiding the facts by providing numerous references in his webarticle, unlike Bart.


Here is an article posted by PBS on their evolution web site. They are squarely in the evolutionist camp with their strong bias in favor of Evolutionism. They speak of the Cambrian Explosion:

(quotations omitted)


Who can blame them for trying to give an accurate summary of the current scientific position? Perhaps they are at fault for not providing equal time for the myriad of inconsistent, incompatible, evidence-free myths provided by various religious groups?



It is ludicrous that PBS writes loaded sentences to browbeat unwary readers into accepting the materialistic evolutionary worldview. Here is such a typical browbeating statement by PBS: "The mutations that give rise to these control genes...". Neither PBS nor Science know anything about any mutations giving rise to control genes. PBS can only justify such a statement because they "KNOW" evolution is a "FACT". This is teaching (of science) at its' worse.

Not unexpected behaviour of creationists; shooting the messenger. Are there any peer-reviewed published scientific papers which refute the PBS statements?

I think we can see which side is rabid and dogmatic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Bart007, posted 09-17-2002 2:38 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020