>Except creation by divine fiat. If evolution is a universal fact, then
>why do blue-green algae still look the same today as they did in the
>preCambrian? How do you explain stasis over a billion years when
>evolution was rampant, leading up to the Cambiran Explosion?
>
Well, geometrically there are only so many ways one can join single celled
creatures together. One can leave them as single cells; one cn connect them
in a line; one can put them in a two dimensional sheet, one can curve them
around in a sphere. After that you begin to get into life forms which are
not single celled. Thus, not having the DNA of these precambrian algae, one
cannot be positive we are really dealing with the same form, but merely a
similar form limited by the geometry of 3 dimensional Euclidean space. Prove
to me that these algae have the same DNA sequence as modern forms.
>There's room enough on the table for more than one theory. As a
>professional geologist, I agree with Moorad; physics is testable,
>historical geology is guessable.
Lets start with something simple. Consider Sandstone A in the diagram below.
top
sandstone
shale
limestone
sandstone
shale
SANDSTONE A
bottom
Are you suggesting that if a sandstone lies underneath a sand, a shale, a
limestone another sand and another shale, that it is only guessable that
Sandstone A was deposited first? Are you suggesting that we can't tell that
the difference between Sandstone A being deposited first or last? To
deposit it last requires that someone or something lift up the top 5 layers
and put Sandstone A underneath them. I would contend that this is not a
guessable sequence of historical events!
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm