Evolution: Bilaterians & Ediacarans (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 24, 2020, 15:44 (16 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Evolutionary biologists studying the genetics of modern animals predicted the oldest ancestor of all bilaterians would have been simple and small, with rudimentary sensory organs. Preserving and identifying the fossilized remains of such an animal was thought to be difficult, if not impossible.

DAVID: As usual the Darwinists try to diminish the Cambrian gap. No way. The Cambrians are still light years more complex than these guys. Of course this stage had to be there.

dhw: The fossil is approx. 555 million years old. The mind boggles at the very thought of a “body” being preserved for that length of time. I really don’t see why we should not accept that it is yet another link in the chain of Darwinian common descent. We have discussed the Cambrian explosion many times, the last occasion being just a few weeks ago when I suggested that a major change in the environment (currently I think the pet theory is still an increase in oxygen) would have either necessitated or allowed for major changes organized by the intelligent cell communities of which all multicellular organisms are composed. I presume your theory is that a major change in the environment necessitated or allowed for major changes organized by God. Same process, different organizer. (NB my suggestion does not exclude God, who may have been the designer of cellular intelligence.)

The bold is your pet theory, not mine. Oxygen usage is a very dangerous process, but currently is the major source of allowing life to create energy providing warm bodies with a maintained temperature. Our bodies contain antioxidants to protect us from oxygen damage. Oxidation is a forest fire, to remind all of how dangerous it is. Therefore the evolutionary development of oxygen use requires very complex design planning, far beyond pie-in-the-sky so-called cell committee intelligence. God didn't give the cells that ability. He designed new processes directly. What we see in cells that makes them seem intelligent, is the beautiful automaticity by which cells create their products and their responses to stimuli.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum