Talk:Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly (Talk.Origins)

The EvoWiki article looks more updated than the original TO article. http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Cambrian_explosion_shows_all_kinds_of_life_appearing_suddenly

TO vs EvoWiki
I [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Talk:List_of_creationist_arguments#TO_and_EvoWiki_differences. asked why] they removed the original responses at EvoWiki. --Yqbd 00:43, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

The length of the Cambrian explosion.

 * TO has at least 5 million. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.
 * EvoWiki has 50 million years long. The Cambrian "explosion" was about 50 million years long, from start to finish. To call a 50-million-year-long event "sudden" is to implicitly accept an evolutionary timescale of a few billion years, not a YEC timescale of a few thousand years.

Response Removed from EvoWiki
Someone left the following response on EvoWiki in response to their article which was removed. --Yqbd 00:42, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Response
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". This is laughable... http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html

‘Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox’. That was how a Scientific American article described an evolutionary problem concerning the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’. In this "explosion" that ocurred an alleged 600 million years ago and ended a supposed 500 million years ago, many invertebrate life appeared for the first time in a fully functioning form and WITHOUT any tranisitional ancestors to speak of. As given by the name, this ocurred in the "Cambrian" layer of sediments. What has been found in the lower layers of Pre Cambrian strata are some various forms of algae and bacteria in rocks dated by evolutionary assumption to be aproximately 3.8 billion years old and on. Without leaving any trace of an evolutionary past between these two ages, life such as sponges, snails, clams, brachiopods, jellyfish, trilobites, worms, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sea lilies, and others are found "exploding" onto the scene ready to go AND in very much their MODERN DAY form (no evolutionary change!). This fact obviously flies in the face of evolutionary predictions that would presuppose what would have to number nearly in the BILLIONS of tranisitional fossils located throughout Pre Cambrian strata to "connect" the different life forms, and museums all over the world should be overflowing their records with these intermediates, but NONE have been found. To see what the opposition had to say, I checked out Talk Origins, and, as usual, the deceptive analysis was forthcoming from every avenue. First, they claim that Pre Cambrian rocks are too old to preserve these fossils. What? How would Pre Cambrian rocks solidly fossilize algae and the like but not the transition between them and the HARD BODIED fauna found in the Cambrian explosion? Moreover, these sediments are, at some points, thousands of feet thick and undisturbed...i.e. PERFECT for fossilization! But none of the hoped for transitions are forthcoming. Talk Origins then goes on to state that some alleged worm holes in the Pre Cambrian are present, but doesn't that presuppose fully functioning worms anyways? Deception. In a last gasp for some sort of transitional, they talk about lobopods being some sort of link, but upon further review, they are nothing of the sort and this suspicion has been done away with. These UNIQUE organisms (some variants are STILL surviving TODAY with NO evolutionary change!) have been placed in an order all their own. --http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Arthropods/Lobopoda/Lobopoda.htm --Talk Origins adds insult to injury by saying that no plants, insects, or other life is found here. Was this EVER insinuated by creationists? Of course not, to even mention this is an attempt by Talk Origins to try and make the creationists appear as though they are grasping at straws by shifting the focus to an argument NEVER made by any creaitonist, when it is obviously the evolutionists LACKING the evidence in support of their theory...creationists are sticking to the facts. And the fact REMAINS and will ever remain (since any intermediates would have undoubtedly been found out by now) that the Cambrian explosion "buries" (pardon the pun) evolution before it can even get going. Oftentimes (as with Talk Origins) evolutionists LOVE the words "rapid" and "quick" to describe evolution of life in these gaps and thus try to explain away the LACK of transitions. They go on to pose a number of different ways that this "could have" ocurred, but as any objective person can see, these are ad hoc explanations that are directly contradictory to the "slow and gradual" process of evolution that is often promulgated. With these types of explantions, how can evolution every be falsified? It obviously already has been, and evolutionists continually try to cling to their theory that exists without a shred of solid evidence. A flood model burying the bottom dwelling life forms (with the bursting forth of the "mountains of the deep" as a source for the flood waters and sediments) that had been already created fits the evidence perfectly. Why all the fuss over evolution and creation, when evolution doesn't even make it out of the gate?! http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html - TO's shenanigans http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/evolution.asp - fits nicely with a Creation/Flood model (Noah's flood for anyone new =)