Kimberella and Ediacaran Fossils: Back to Square One

Imagine that after the publication of this book, evolutionists are still going back to square one and telling us about the Cambrella and the rest of the Ediacaran fossils as possible ancestors! This reminds you of what happened at the Sam Noble Museum of Science at the University of Oklahoma in 2009, where Dr. Steven Meyer and Dr. Jonathan Wells were supposed to show the documentary (Darwin's Dilemma) in the museum hall, and the museum management decided to preempt the event by holding a lecture for a paleontologist from the university itself, seeking to respond to the film and refute it before it was shown. Wells lectured ignoring the disgruntled looks and, as might have been expected, the paleontologist argued that the Cambrian explosion posed no dilemma to Darwinian theory of evolution, even stranger that it had originally denied that there had been an explosion; Or that the appearance of innovative animal forms in the Cambrian was surprising, and then explained how those forms emerged from rudimentary forms (primarily not fully developed) preceded them in the Late Precambrian, and mentioned the discovery of paleontologists for deposits of Late Precambrian fossil sponges, and a type of mollusc. Primitive, worm-made grooves! He particularly emphasized the importance of a group of mysterious beings that appeared in the Idiacaran Highlands of South Australia, dating back 565 million years from the Precambrian known as the Vendian or Ediacaran era. “Jonathan and I were well aware that most paleontologists don’t consider these fossilized organisms a reasonable common ancestor of Cambrian beings, but that evening the expert from the university claimed quite the opposite,” Meyer said. Imagine that after the end of the lecture and the end of Mayer and Wells from the film screening, Wells is surprised on his way out that the museum has a facade in which it is clearly clear how much the dilemma of the Cambrian explosion, Wells explains to us more about the show: "The presentation seems to be academically accurate in most of its parts, and confirms, among other things, that many of the Cambrian explosion fossils were soft-bodied, and this delegitimizes the common excuse for the absence of Salafi vanguards from the fossil record by their lack of solid parts, as demonstrated by the extinction of the Ediacaran fossils at the end of the pre-Cambrian era, so that, with the possible exception of a few, it would not be possible." "After all the controversy, it turns out that the museum that sponsored the lecture denying Darwin's Cambrian Dilemma is the one that has a great display of the absence of possible ancestral forms of Cambrian fauna from the precambrian fossil record, the same ones Darwin hoped to find a hundred and fifty years ago, but if so, why did the museum sponsor it?" Doolittle’s argument seems to be the answer to Meyer’s question that “a lot of things are at stake politically and socially.” Anyway, we leave you with the entire fourth chapter for free, a fun read. https://www.braheen.com/download/DD-04.pdf (*) W. Ford Doolittle, “The practice of classification and the theory of evolution, and what the demise of Charles Darwin’s tree of life hypothesis means for both of them,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 364 (2009): 2221–2228. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0032. PMID:19571242. — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid0qLhgS3VJEKhkjFz4vHyja17LaUYqFk3fcEeEZP4tKVdZspJcCtWLLq8e7HxCiAuGl