evolution

Other one of the Phyla that emerged during the Cambrian age is the chordata, Those creatures with a central nervous system with a brain case and a spinal column.Vertebrates are sub groups of chordates.Vertebrates divided into into such fundamental classes as fish,amphibians,reptiles,birds, and mammals are perhaps the most dominate creatures in the animal kingdom.

Evolutionary paleontologists try to view every phylum is a continuation of another phylum, they claim that the chordata phylum evolved from another invertebrate's one but members of chordata emerged in the Cambrian age invalidates that claim. The oldest member of the chordata phylum identified from the Cambrian age is a sea creature called Pikaia which emerged at the same time as all the other species in the phylum which could be proposed as it's ancestor and with no intermediate forms between them.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
"How could they have come by such an effective defense system at a time when there were no predators around?" The lack of predators at the time makes it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection.

I don't think I've ever heard of an era that had no predators.

Actually, it makes more sense than you'd think. The theory of evolution is extremely imperfect and messy. It's creationism that demands a reason and expects perfection.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I don't think I've ever heard of an era that had no predators.

Actually, it makes more sense than you'd think. The theory of evolution is extremely imperfect and messy. It's creationism that demands a reason and expects perfection.

Imperfect 😆

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Imperfect 😆

why is that funny?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
One of the creatures which suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age was Hallucigenia, And as with many other Cambrian fossils, it has spines or a hard shell to protect it from attack by enemies. The question that evolutionists cannot answer is, "How could they have come by such an effective defense system at a time when there were no predators around?" The lack of predators at the time makes it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection.

Why do you make incorrect claims that there were no predators? We also don't know what the function of these where, we are only guessing. They could have been decorative ot attracting a mate or to protect them from rival males. The fact that the focal record is incomplete and hard to read, dose not make a valid argument against evolution.

Neo-darwinsit claim that mutations can cause diversity amongst organisms let's examine this claim

Mutation are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule which is found in the nuclei of the cell which contains all it's genetic information. these breaks are caused by external factors such as radiation or chemical action, every mutation is an accident and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes the location. most of the time they cause so much damage the cell can't repair it.

The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, Is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a fully developed living thing carry more then one piece of information. For instance one gene may control both height and eye color of that organism.
Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change will effect more then one organ. so even if one change happens to be beneficial to one organ it will damage the other.

To sum up my argument there are 3 reasons mutations can't be beneficial

1."- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.-"

2.- "Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.-"

3."- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations."

^^^
Wrong kind of mutation. We should be talking about reproductive mutations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you make incorrect claims that there were no predators? We also don't know what the function of these where, we are only guessing. They could have been decorative ot attracting a mate or to protect them from rival males. The fact that the focal record is incomplete and hard to read, dose not make a valid argument against evolution.

It was a quote there predators only a few.

EDIT:http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Arthropods/Anomalocarida/Anomalocarida.htm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^^^
Wrong kind of mutation. We should be talking about reproductive mutations.

Mutations DO NOT produce new organs,traits, and enzymes...

So, to which belief do you subscribe?

Evolution has gaps and problems? Of course! It is the worst possible theory for explaining life...except for all the other theories.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, to which belief do you subscribe?

None.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Mutations DO NOT produce new organs,traits, and enzymes...

I have just recently heard that they have been able to track back to the mutation that caused Caucasians to have lighter skin color. This was a reproductive mutation.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
None.

That's convenient. I'm sure you think that's the smartest way.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
None.

If that was true, you would have no point of view.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If that was true, you would have no point of view.

No you don't get it I disagree with those two their other theories out there.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have just recently heard that they have been able to track back to the mutation that caused Caucasians to have lighter skin color. This was a reproductive mutation.

Mutations don't create new traits lighter skin color most likely was either a recessive trait.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Mutations don't create new traits lighter skin color most likely was either a recessive trait.

I can't convince you, I don’t have the time to look it up, but what I heard was that it was a reproductive mutation.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
No you don't get it I disagree with those two their other theories out there.

Then feel free to elaborate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you make incorrect claims that there were no predators? We also don't know what the function of these where, we are only guessing. They could have been decorative ot attracting a mate or to protect them from rival males. The fact that the focal record is incomplete and hard to read, dose not make a valid argument against evolution.

Darwinism states that complex phyla develop over time yet here we have organisms that suddenly appeared with no transitional forms or common ancestors with complex organs and appear out of nowhwere