Atheists, do you agree that Richard Dawkins "scientific explanation" to dismantle Creationists'?
Richard Dawkins is a famous biological theorist with a background in ethology. Therefore we can expect a significant amount of scientific facts to support his arguments. Unfortunately his statements in his recent book "The Greatest Show on Earth" raises serious questions about Dawkins' credibility
"I have dealt with the Cambrian Explosion at length, especially in Unweaving the Rainbow. Here I’ll add just one new point, illustrated by the flatworms, Platyhelminthes. This great phylum of worms includes the parasitic flukes and tapeworms, which are of great medical importance. My favourites, however, are the free-living turbellarian worms, of which there are more than four thousand species: that’s about as numerous as all the mammal species put together.
Some of these turbellarians are creatures of great beauty, as the two pictured opposite show. They are common, both in water and on land, and PRESUMABLY have been common for a very long time. You’d expect, therefore, to see a RICH FOSSIL HISTORY..
Unfortunately, there is almost NOTHING. Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found. The Platyhelminthes, to a worm, are ALREADY IN AN ADVANCED STATE OF EVOLUTION, THE VERY FIRST TIME THEY APPEAR. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.’
But in this case, ‘the very first time they appear’ is not the Cambrian but today. Do you see what this means, or at least ought to mean for creationists? CREATIONISTS BELIEVE that flatworms were created IN THE SAME WEEK as all other creatures. They have therefore had exactly the same time in which to fossilize as all other animals. During all the centuries when all those bony or shelly animals were depositing their fossils by the thousands, the flatworms must have been living happily alongside them, but without leaving any significant trace of their presence in the rocks." (The Greatest Show on Earth, p.66)
How could he ever prove the ancestors of flatworms is exactly the same with "modern" flatworms? And sadly he use this twisted logic to bash the creationists' logic. I'm not defending the creationists here but can't you see his logical fallacy?
Also, the great biologist Richard Dawkins may have missed this fact
The "modern" tubellarian have about 4,500 species are mostly free-living, and range from 1 mm (0.039 in) to 600 mm (24 in) in length (NOT MICROSCOPIC), Contrary to Brabbinthes Churkini's microscopic size. And despite the facts of a number of morphologic features in BC are of interest terms of early tubellarian development, there is absence of various other important structures!
The fossil proves that the flatworms is evolved from a much simpler ancestors. And the flatworms IS NOT "already in an advanced state of evolution the very first time they appear" as Dawkins have said.
Richard Dawkins' argument regarding Cambrian Explosion is nothing but a speculation! He had brought more confusion instead of giving scientific explanation regarding Cambrian Explosion
What do you think? Thanks :)
Well.... he just a man. Not an omniscient creature, right? Why do you think he can't be wrong?
But Dawkins arrogantly said "the worm already in an advanced state of evolution the very first time they appear" without any evidence to prove his statement
Tell Dawkins i said hi :)
Oh, and i forgot to mention that flatworm's ancestors came from Precambrian age NOT Cambrian
people have a common ancestor ---> I agree
But my focus is Richard Dawkins' statement that the ancestor of flatworms is already in an advanced state of evolution the very first time they appear.
It's like saying the protohumans looks very similar with us since the first time they appear