scombrid

And you dare to introduce new assertions without backing up your previous assertions regarding the number of species and your warped interpretation of the burgess shale formation.

Actually you're the first person I've heard claim that these events occurred simultaneously. Your assertions consitute a substantial pervertion of most abiogenetic hypotheses.

This type of misunderstanding is on par with people that discount evolutionary theory because it's impossible for sufficient mutations to line up such that a cephalopod gives birth to a teleost or even for a chimp to give birth to a human and thus the new species is born.

I'll assume then that you understand neither abiogenesis related hypotheses and theories or evolutionary theory.

CX

It's "declension" you ignoramus.

ps418

And this statement should be enough proof for anyone that you are getting your facts from a very unreliable source. You see, there are millions of species on the earth today, whereas there may be 100-200 or so species described from the Burgess Shale, and every single one of them are invertebrates. So your 'proof' of species decline is really proof only of your ignorance about the Burgess Shale. In fact, I bet you can't find a single paleontologist who works on the Burgess Shale who would agree that species-level diversity has experienced a net decrease since Cambrian time.

Patrick

Oolon Colluphid

'Delension' was a typo... whereas the rest of it was made up bullshit... hey, sounds like Ed's definition of a typo...

Jack the Bodiless

"NAtural selection is a fairytale"?

This reminds me of mturner's many confrontations with the "legless cheetah". He kept arguing that natural selection was baloney, but was repeatedly forced to admit that a cheetah born with no legs as a result of a congenital defect would be unlikely to survive and pass on its genes. Then he'd just forget about that and revert to "natural selection doesn't happen" mode again...

Muad'Dib

Nonsense. Shuffle a deck of cards thoroughly and write down what order they're in. The odds of getting that exact sequence are 1 in 52! (52 factorial, or 52 * 51 * ... * 3 * 2), which is less likely than 1 in 10^67, as you can check on a computer algebra system. Surely you don't claim that statisticians disbelieve in the existence of playing cards?

Hmm...this reply is a little late I think...ah well.

Doctor X

However it is a good example. It is a bit like the lottery where it is "impossible" to win but someone does!

I think people make a result "special" like the order of your deck of cards and therefore forget that all of the others are not "equally special."

--J.D.

JaeIsGod

Personally I think he is full of it.

Doctor X

It seems the very human attempt to try to meld reality to what we would like it to be. It is a bit like a person who thinks he is the next Caruso . . . provided he confines his Nesun Dormina to his shower, he is fine.

Should he try it in public. . . .

He has a couple of choices in response to the flying fruit and death threats:

1. Take lessons.
2. Confine his singing to his shower.
3. Declare everyone else in the world is a tasteless peasant.

For some, option three--pigheaded denial--carries less threat. So they will believe in whatever absurdity to save the precious myth.

--J.D.

Herman Hedning

Minor nit - Enrico Caruso died in 1921 and Puccinis Turandot with Nessun dorma premiered in 1926. But Caruso would certainly have sung this part if he had been alive.