Joined: Jan. 2009
|Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 10 2012,12:28)|
|Let's see how UD is doing, eh?|
|Earlier than thought: Oldest organism with a skeleton predates the Cambrian era|
Okay, this sounded cool so I Googled "oldest organism with skeleton" to see what it was about. Good news: UD doesn't appear within the first 10 pages of results (for comparison purposes only, richarddawkins.net is result #4). But then morbid curiosity got the better of me and I went over to UD to see how News could possibly spin this against evolution - because you know that the only reason UD ever cites interesting science is in order to sneer at it. Here it is:
|Darwinists often point to such discoveries gleefully, hoping to knock the significance out of the Cambrian explosion half a billion years ago, when almost all current phyla of animals appeared rather promptly. The problem they never discuss (and no one would now be legally allowed to discuss in many school systems) is this: If the explosive innovations occur much earlier, they decrease the amount of time for natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) to produce them, a process that must usually be slow anyway.|
Please, everyone raise his hand who thinks that it wouldn't be legal to discuss how Darwinian mechanisms, operating over the span of at least 600 million years (from the first known multicellular organisms), could produce a mineralized spicule. Keep in mind that schools already allow discussions about how quadrupedal ancestors could have developed into whales over the course of about 50 million years.
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes. I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it. Okay? So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L