(Barbarian notes that there are still no Cambrian rabbits)
Yes...its obvious that rabbits don't live in water.*
Plenty of land during the Cambrian. And those deposits are known. Just no rabbits, or any other land animals. Bad luck, um?
However there are 'rabbits' found in the Cambrian that are*baffling to evolutionists.
I see that in the supermarket checkout aisle. The tabloids are always saying "scientists are baffled."
One such example is that sophisticated eye designs are found out of sequence according to standard evolutionary thinking and dating.
Sounds unlikely. The fact that you can't provide a link suggests that you've realized this.
We have long known that trilobites had one of the most sophisticated and complex eye designs of any creature;
Except, of course, that it couldn't focus an image. Primitive compound eyes are very good for detecting motion, but they can't form an accurate image and they are very short range. This is why the few arthropods that depend on resolving a good image, like jumping spiders, have adjustable single-lens eyes. I used to have one living on a plant in the porch, I'd occasionally bring it an insect. Whenever I approached, it became quite active, apparently because it had associated me with the arrival of food. It could see me a good distance off. No Cambrian creature had eyes that effective.
but something even more amazing. Giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) are dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus).
They aren't shrimp. The name (Anomalocaris: "strange shrimp") was given to the jointed appendages of the creature before an entire fossil was found. The appendages look somewhat like the abdomen of shrimp. It too had primitive compound eyes, although as a predator, it could surely have done better with more evolved eyes.
The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye*
Nature#480 p237-240*
It seems to have evolved very rapidly after exoskeletons had made predation more practical. However, earlier, and simpler eyes are known in the arthropod lineage.
Complexity and diversity of eyes in Early Cambrian ecosystems
Here we report exceptionally preserved non-biomineralized compound eyes of a non-trilobite arthropod Cindarella eucalla from the lower Cambrian Chengjiang Lagerstätte, China. The specimen represents the oldest microanatomical evidence confirming the occurrence of highly developed vision in the early Cambrian, over 2,000 ommatidia in each eye. Moreover, a quantitative analysis of the distribution of eyes related to life habit, feeding types, and phyla respectively, from the Chengjiang biota indicates that specimens with eyes mostly belong to the arthropods, and they usually were actively mobile epifaunal and nektonic forms as hunters or scavengers. Arthropods took the lead in evolution of ‘good vision’ and domination in Cambrian communities, which supports the hypothesis that the origin and evolution of ‘good vision’ was a key trait that promoted preferential diversification and formed the foundation of modern benthic ecosystems in the early Cambrian ocean.
Scientific Reports 3, Article number: 2751 (2013)
doi:10.1038/srep02751
Notice what he is really saying.....*THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.
No. In fact he says they evolved. And while the evidence is abundant that they evolved rapidly, he says nothing about the evidence in your edited portion.
This is why you have a reputation for dishonesty here.
Evolutionists often refuse the explanation that best fits the evidence... intelligent design indicates an Intelligent Designer.
As you learned, the existence of suboptimal structures shows a lack of design. Your "space alien designer" is a myth, constructed by those who are scared of an omnipotent Creator like God.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences#90 wrote:*
...arthropod eye evolution has remained controversial, because one of*two seemingly unlikely*evolutionary histories must be true. " (haha) " Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups....or, compound eyes have been been lost in a Seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages
Since we now have numerous examples of organisms formerly having eyes, and losing them, the latter is the best supported argument. There are a good number of examples, in fish, mammals, and so on, showing this. ID proposes some incompetent "designer", perhaps a "space alien", who makes repeated goofs in his work.
Perhaps they should consider more than just the 2 "seeming unlikely " choices.*The evidence (sudden appearance and intelligently designed) fits what Gods Word tells us...*
If so, it's difficult to see why your space alien would design a cave fish with non-functional eyes, when it had no use for them, or why it would put perfectly good eyes in mole rats, but cover them with skin and make them nonfunctional for vision.
The rudimentary eyes of the mole rat (Spalax ehrenbergi) are located under the skin and do not respond to light stimuli.
http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2160417
God's Word says*"The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both", but you are unwilling to accept the way He made them. You pro
Another precambrian 'rabbit'. Unfossilized exquisitely preserved wood has been found in a diamond quarry dated at 53 million years old. Interesting is that this is a warm climate wood, found in a cold climate with limited tree growth.
And we all know why there's no checkable source for this story. Did you think we wouldn't notice?
