Cambrian Explosion: Namacalathus refuted ; no slope (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, January 21, 2021, 15:30 (1402 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We've met the highly trained Bechly before. The slope we discussed between Ediacaran and Cambrian under 'miscellaneous' may still be just a gap. Darwinists sure try hard to get rid of it.

Your original comment was:

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

dhw: You fully expected there to be a relation between late Ediacaran and early Cambrian, and were certain that there was no abrupt dividing line in evolution, so I don’t know why you are suddenly sneering at Darwinists who think the same as you. Of course I have no idea whether Bechly is right or wrong – we’d need a response from the authors, who may also be “highly trained”. But this doesn’t alter your original statement, which seems to me to be a commonsense assumption for anyone who believes in common descent. I suggested that the “major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians” was covered by the fact that a lot can happen in 55 million years, especially if we consider the possibility of cellular intelligence as the driving force for speciation.

Bechly wrote two articles. I couldn't put more of it in one entry. What he makes of the organism is that it is much less complex than the authors attempted to claim. I still agree with you here must be some sort of slope, as the two periods time slide into each other. The issue is complexity, and if Bechly is correct the complexity gap is still huge. Bechly complains of the Darwinists overinterpreting to narrow the gap. So I see a 5 degree slope in complexity before a 95 degree event occurs.