https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-huayuan-is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
On 2/11/26 1:41 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-huayuan-
is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
Showing that S&C is a mindless creationist site. Tell me, who are the
"some evolutionists" who greeted the new site with "consternation"?
On 2/11/2026 3:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 1:41 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-huayuan-
is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
Showing that S&C is a mindless creationist site. Tell me, who are the
"some evolutionists" who greeted the new site with "consternation"?
I don't know, but that Nature source the article refers to, the same one
you posted, I can't access.-a Can you?
On 2/11/26 4:02 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/11/2026 3:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 1:41 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-huayuan-
is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
Showing that S&C is a mindless creationist site. Tell me, who are the
"some evolutionists" who greeted the new site with "consternation"?
I don't know, but that Nature source the article refers to, the same
one you posted, I can't access.-a Can you?
Just the abstract. But if you google "huayuan" you will find a few more articles in the press.
On 12/02/2026 00:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 4:02 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/11/2026 3:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 1:41 PM, sticks wrote:I don't know, but that Nature source the article refers to, the same
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-
huayuan- is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
Showing that S&C is a mindless creationist site. Tell me, who are
the "some evolutionists" who greeted the new site with "consternation"? >>>
one you posted, I can't access.-a Can you?
Just the abstract. But if you google "huayuan" you will find a few
more articles in the press.
It might have expired by now, but the YouTube video has a gift access link.
On 2/11/2026 6:16 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 12/02/2026 00:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 4:02 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/11/2026 3:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 1:41 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the >>>>>>> Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-
huayuan- is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
Showing that S&C is a mindless creationist site. Tell me, who are
the "some evolutionists" who greeted the new site with
"consternation"?
I don't know, but that Nature source the article refers to, the same
one you posted, I can't access.-a Can you?
Just the abstract. But if you google "huayuan" you will find a few
more articles in the press.
It might have expired by now, but the YouTube video has a gift access
link.
Yes, that still worked.-a Thanks.
I don't think the rCLmore of the samerCY John asked about came from there. I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of that sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the samerCY in the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant to depict their
"common" response at these Cambrian announcements.
FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points and left
it at that.
On 2/11/2026 6:16 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 12/02/2026 00:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 4:02 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/11/2026 3:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 1:41 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the >>>>>>> Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-
huayuan- is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
Showing that S&C is a mindless creationist site. Tell me, who are
the "some evolutionists" who greeted the new site with
"consternation"?
I don't know, but that Nature source the article refers to, the same
one you posted, I can't access.-a Can you?
Just the abstract. But if you google "huayuan" you will find a few
more articles in the press.
It might have expired by now, but the YouTube video has a gift access
link.
Yes, that still worked.-a Thanks.
I don't think the rCLmore of the samerCY John asked about came from there.
I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of that sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the samerCY in the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant to depict their
"common" response at these Cambrian announcements.
FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points and left
it at that.
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:From your link above:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the Burgess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-huayuan-is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
--God doesn't support creation. Creationists do.
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do
On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 15:41:18 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the Burgess. >>> Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-huayuan-is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
From your link above:
******************************************
The Huayuan Biota, like the other Cambrian fossil sites, documents
faunal disparity but not ancestry. ItrCOs rCLmore of the samerCY found all over the world in the Cambrian: the same phyla with clearly
recognizable members. What is the source of the information required
to build integrated systems displaying hierarchical organization? That
was the question in DarwinrCOs Doubt. None of the sources even tried to address that issue. Design advocates can scientifically predict that evolutionists will continue failing to locate the information required
for complex body plans within oxygen molecules. *****************************************
The above is an example of S&C complaining about the extra gaps
created from evidence filling a gap in their "god of the gaps"
reasoning.
On 2/11/26 5:26 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/11/2026 6:16 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 12/02/2026 00:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 4:02 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/11/2026 3:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 1:41 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the >>>>>>>> Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-
huayuan- is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
Showing that S&C is a mindless creationist site. Tell me, who are >>>>>> the "some evolutionists" who greeted the new site with
"consternation"?
I don't know, but that Nature source the article refers to, the
same one you posted, I can't access.-a Can you?
Just the abstract. But if you google "huayuan" you will find a few
more articles in the press.
It might have expired by now, but the YouTube video has a gift access
link.
Yes, that still worked.-a Thanks.
I don't think the rCLmore of the samerCY John asked about came from there.
That's not what I asked about.
I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of that
sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the samerCY in
the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant to depict
their "common" response at these Cambrian announcements.
FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points and left
it at that.
What points, exactly?
On 2/11/2026 10:47 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 5:26 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/11/2026 6:16 PM, Ernest Major wrote:That's not what I asked about.
On 12/02/2026 00:06, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 4:02 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/11/2026 3:51 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/11/26 1:41 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/1/2026 10:48 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/31/26 4:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
Hmm. A bit younger than the Chengjiang and a bit older than the >>>>>>>>> Burgess. Shame on Nature for not making this open access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mJJc_bMWE0
But here's the abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10030-0
The S&C take on the discovery...
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/02/get-to-know-the-name-
huayuan- is-a-major-new-cambrian-fossil-site-found-in-china/>
Showing that S&C is a mindless creationist site. Tell me, who are >>>>>>> the "some evolutionists" who greeted the new site with
"consternation"?
I don't know, but that Nature source the article refers to, the
same one you posted, I can't access.-a Can you?
Just the abstract. But if you google "huayuan" you will find a few
more articles in the press.
It might have expired by now, but the YouTube video has a gift
access link.
Yes, that still worked.-a Thanks.
I don't think the rCLmore of the samerCY John asked about came from there. >>
3 hours before you posted this I wrote about what I specifically asked them:-a "I did email them asking to explain who these evolutionists who
felt consternation are, and if my interpretation of "more of the same"
is correct.-a We'll see if they answer."
I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of that
sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the samerCY in >>> the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant to depict
their "common" response at these Cambrian announcements.
FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points and
left it at that.
What points, exactly?
If you can't seem to recognize them when they made them, I doubt you
would if I did.
But, I'll let you know if S&C does answer the email.
I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of that
sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the samerCY in >>>> the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant to depict
their "common" response at these Cambrian announcements.
FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points and
left it at that.
What points, exactly?
If you can't seem to recognize them when they made them, I doubt you
would if I did.
I'm just asking for your opinion of what points they made. My opinion is that they made no points. Is it that hard?
On 2/12/2026 12:38 PM, John Harshman wrote:
I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of
that sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the
samerCY in the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant to >>>>> depict their "common" response at these Cambrian announcements.
FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points and
left it at that.
What points, exactly?
If you can't seem to recognize them when they made them, I doubt you
would if I did.
I'm just asking for your opinion of what points they made. My opinion
is that they made no points. Is it that hard?
Not hard, just pointless.
On 2/12/26 12:33 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/12/2026 12:38 PM, John Harshman wrote:
I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of
that sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the >>>>>> samerCY in the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant >>>>>> to depict their "common" response at these Cambrian announcements. >>>>>> FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points and >>>>>> left it at that.
What points, exactly?
If you can't seem to recognize them when they made them, I doubt you
would if I did.
I'm just asking for your opinion of what points they made. My opinion
is that they made no points. Is it that hard?
Not hard, just pointless.
You have learned much from Martin Harran.
On 2/12/2026 5:23 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/12/26 12:33 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/12/2026 12:38 PM, John Harshman wrote:
I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of >>>>>>> that sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the >>>>>>> samerCY in the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant >>>>>>> to depict their "common" response at these Cambrian announcements. >>>>>>> FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points and >>>>>>> left it at that.
What points, exactly?
If you can't seem to recognize them when they made them, I doubt
you would if I did.
I'm just asking for your opinion of what points they made. My
opinion is that they made no points. Is it that hard?
Not hard, just pointless.
You have learned much from Martin Harran.
Though Martin spends time in some areas I find interesting, some are not things I would rate all that important to MY interest in origins, and my time on TO.-a That said, I did find some of the conversation you've had
with him fair, until they seemed to take the usual course of
degradation.-a The initial back and forth appeared cordial and not intentionally or unfairly dismissive.-a I respected that and would like
to see it more often here.
I posted the link to the Burgess Shale finding on the S&C site because I remembered seeing it noted here earlier, and thought the short read
might be of interest to both creationists and evolutionists.
Creationists get much more insight into materialism than the other way around, but I would think it is of value to the evolutionist to know
what the reasons for the creationist arguments are.
It is a short read, and obviously a thoughtful person like you could understand their position and the points they were making.
However,
instead of responding to them you chose to first ridicule them with "S&C
is a mindless creationist site", and then question a rather irrelevant
issue about "who are the "some evolutionists" who greeted the new site
with "consternation"?"
That is a fair question, and I did attempt to find an answer to it, as I found it odd, too.-a But their points were easily understood, and you
choose not to address them, instead claiming "they made no points."
All I will tell is is I can understand their points, and yes, I agree
with them.-a There simply is no need for me to spend time in discussing
them here, as that would be pointless.-a I would suggest you make a case
on why they are wrong and perhaps that might change.-a Unfortunately, you don't think they made any points.
All I will tell is is I can understand their points, and yes, I agree
with them.-a There simply is no need for me to spend time in discussing
them here, as that would be pointless.-a I would suggest you make a
case on why they are wrong and perhaps that might change.
Unfortunately, you don't think they made any points.
I could make a case if I knew what you thought the points were. But I
don't.
I know the reasons. It's just that they are usually mis-stated. And in
the article you linked, the creationism and its reasons aren't even explicitly stated. All we get are vague innuendos, and that's why I
asked you to explain their points.
On 2/13/2026 10:59 AM, John Harshman wrote:
All I will tell is is I can understand their points, and yes, I agree
with them.-a There simply is no need for me to spend time in
discussing them here, as that would be pointless.-a I would suggest
you make a case on why they are wrong and perhaps that might change.
Unfortunately, you don't think they made any points.
I could make a case if I knew what you thought the points were. But I
don't.
There are two main points made.-a First, as in all the known Cambrian
fossil sites, there is a lack of "transitional forms."
This is a well
known issue and Stephen Gould frames the problem: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data
only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference,
however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
-a They agree the new
site is a wonderful example of "a community of complex animals preserved with fine details intact," with "the sudden appearance of complex body
plans in thriving ecosystems, focusing on the sophisticated body systems like eyes, jointed legs, guts, reproductive systems, and brains."
However, they note "Evolutionists, though, are straining to fit it into
a Darwinian narrative, aware that an rCLexplosionrCY of complex body plans runs contrary to the gradual mutation-selection rCLmechanismrCY championed by Darwin."
The second is pointing out two ways the paper tries to magically explain
the problem of lack of traditional forms, without having to mention it.
They have a catchy new phrase, "Evolutionary Innovation",
that has about
as much scientific support as the usual, "Mother Nature" or "Life Finds
Way" made up phrases that appear to give some type of design and intelligence qualities to materialistic evolution processes.-a They go to the next step in defining Oxygen as the source of "evolutionistsrCO magic potions to spark innovation", while "failing to locate the information required for complex body plans within oxygen molecules."
I know the reasons. It's just that they are usually mis-stated. And in
the article you linked, the creationism and its reasons aren't even
explicitly stated. All we get are vague innuendos, and that's why I
asked you to explain their points.
OK, the points are right there in plain sight and really nothing new, as will be any rebuttal you might have.-a So what was the point in this,
other than you labeling S&C a "mindless creationist site, and the guy
who wrote that article is a young-earth creationist?", and in doing so claiming their points are "unsupported innuendo?"
On 2/13/26 7:53 AM, sticks wrote:
On 2/12/2026 5:23 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/12/26 12:33 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/12/2026 12:38 PM, John Harshman wrote:
I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of >>>>>>>> that sentence.-a But I think since he used the same rCLmore of the >>>>>>>> samerCY in the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant >>>>>>>> to depict their "common" response at these Cambrian announcements. >>>>>>>> FWIW, it was unnecessary.-a Should have just made their points >>>>>>>> and left it at that.
What points, exactly?
If you can't seem to recognize them when they made them, I doubt
you would if I did.
I'm just asking for your opinion of what points they made. My
opinion is that they made no points. Is it that hard?
Not hard, just pointless.
You have learned much from Martin Harran.
Though Martin spends time in some areas I find interesting, some are
not things I would rate all that important to MY interest in origins,
and my time on TO.-a That said, I did find some of the conversation
you've had with him fair, until they seemed to take the usual course
of degradation.-a The initial back and forth appeared cordial and not
intentionally or unfairly dismissive.-a I respected that and would like
to see it more often here.
I posted the link to the Burgess Shale finding on the S&C site because
I remembered seeing it noted here earlier, and thought the short read
might be of interest to both creationists and evolutionists.
Creationists get much more insight into materialism than the other way
around, but I would think it is of value to the evolutionist to know
what the reasons for the creationist arguments are.
I know the reasons. It's just that they are usually mis-stated. And in
the article you linked, the creationism and its reasons aren't even explicitly stated. All we get are vague innuendos, and that's why I
asked you to explain their points.
It is a short read, and obviously a thoughtful person like you could
understand their position and the points they were making.
Again, I ask "What points?"
This is a serious question. What points do you believe that article made
or attempted to make?
However, instead of responding to them you chose to first ridicule
them with "S&C is a mindless creationist site", and then question a
rather irrelevant issue about "who are the "some evolutionists" who
greeted the new site with "consternation"?"
But they are a mindless creationist site, and the guy who wrote that
article is a young-earth creationist. Nor is that issue irrelevant. It
was another example of attack by unsupported innuendo.
That is a fair question, and I did attempt to find an answer to it, as
I found it odd, too.-a But their points were easily understood, and you
choose not to address them, instead claiming "they made no points."
That remains my claim.
All I will tell is is I can understand their points, and yes, I agree
with them.-a There simply is no need for me to spend time in discussing
them here, as that would be pointless.-a I would suggest you make a
case on why they are wrong and perhaps that might change.
Unfortunately, you don't think they made any points.
I could make a case if I knew what you thought the points were. But I
don't.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:57:07 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (10,048K bytes) |
| Messages: | 203,128 |