Natural selection is proven wrong

[wbla3335]

futurezoologist, and anyone else who wants to reason with gamila, don't waste your time. He/she/it isn't interested in reason. He/she/it has been banned from other forums and is infecting this forum because there seems to be no moderators to apply a disinfectant. There is no hope for a rational discussion here. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME.

IF YOU DON'T FEED IT, IT WILL GO AWAY. JUST DON'T POST REPLIES.

If you enjoy serious discussions about things evolutionary, go to http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
This is a well moderated forum that does not tolerate the likes of what is happening here. I've just about had my fill of this nonsense and am seriously considering just leaving this forum behind because I don't like wasting my time. Let's try to get back to talking about things and helping those who have questions.

[gamila]

There is no hope for a rational discussion here. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME.

you say not rational
then
lets start with just on one point
all you have to do is give the fossill evidence that links the precambrian organisms with the major organisms of the cambrian
you say science is based on evidence well then give it - not some half baked explanation which really just begs the question
it is really very simple

[alextemplet]

futurezoologist, and anyone else who wants to reason with gamila, don't waste your time. He/she/it isn't interested in reason. He/she/it has been banned from other forums and is infecting this forum because there seems to be no moderators to apply a disinfectant. There is no hope for a rational discussion here. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME.

IF YOU DON'T FEED IT, IT WILL GO AWAY. JUST DON'T POST REPLIES.

If you enjoy serious discussions about things evolutionary, go to http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
This is a well moderated forum that does not tolerate the likes of what is happening here. I've just about had my fill of this nonsense and am seriously considering just leaving this forum behind because I don't like wasting my time. Let's try to get back to talking about things and helping those who have questions.

I have just addressed this question in the site suggestions forum:
about15973.html

[wbla3335]

Alex, I contacted honee_v, who is supposed to be the group leader of the moderators, some days ago with no response. I don't know where the moderators have gone, or maybe honee_v is gamila. Maybe they only check in here every few months. Anyway, it's good I'm not alone in this revolt against irrationality. What I am doing here is against the rules of the forum, but if the cops aren't looking, hey, I'm going for it.

[gamila]

all you have to do is start with point 1
and give us fossil evidence of precambrian fossils linking the cambrian major organsims
you say science is based on evidence so just give us the evidence
we do have THE EVIDENCE of the cambrain explosion and unless you can give us your evidence then the evidence we have of the cambrain explosion shows Natural selection is wrong-even Darwin saw this 160 yeqars ago

[MichaelXY]

all you have to do is start with point 1
and give us fossil evidence of precambrian fossils linking the cambrian major organsims
you say science is based on evidence so just give us the evidence
we do have THE EVIDENCE of the cambrain explosion and unless you can give us your evidence then the evidence we have of the cambrain explosion shows Natural selection is wrong-even Darwin saw this 160 yeqars ago

I just started reading this thread, and I find your argument full of nonsense. You have neither defended your argument with facts or supporting documents, rather your arugument is repleat with erroneous statements and comments.

Your argument seems soley based on circular thinking and non-linear reasoning. Around and around we go with your logic, yet you have failed to make a point.

Many of your points seem untrue, please offer citations for you claims, as your credability has quickly raised doubt. For example; where did you get this from? Natural selection is wrong-even Darwin saw this 160 yeqars ago

Please be more precise in your claims, give supporting data to back your statements.

[gamila]

I just started reading this thread, and I find your argument full of nonsense.

all you have to do is start with point 1
and give us fossil evidence of precambrian fossils linking the cambrian major organsims
you say science is based on evidence so just give us the evidence
we do have THE EVIDENCE of the cambrain explosion and unless you can give us your evidence then the evidence we have of the cambrain explosion shows Natural selection is wrong-even Darwin saw this 160 yeqars ago

[AstusAleator]

Gamila - while I've been largely ignoring everything you say; I couldn't help but notice you continue to emphasize the Cambrian explosion.
With no other intention than to get you to shut up, I've found something for you to read.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
please note that every point is supported by literature citation. Have doubts? Check the source.

Please read it all before deciding whether or not to continue spamming about the Cambrian explosion.

[alextemplet]

With no other intention than to get you to shut up, I've found something for you to read.

Dang it, now you're making me wish we still had the Member Quotes thread!

[gamila]

I've found something for you to read.

all it says is there was an CAMBRIAN explosion
and then goes on with some half baked explanation about how it
MIGHT be explianed

There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

i could say it might be explianed by aliens doing genetic experiments
GIVE US FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF PRECAMBRIAN ORGANISMS LINKING THE CAMBRIAN ORGANISMS

[AstusAleator]

http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/c ... t/83/2/161
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... 18/12/1199
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... /5430/1025
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... ne&aid=623
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4457.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5381/1342
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 8/5467/841
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full

[wbla3335]

Slow learners.