I was simply clarifying that an apparent implication of that quote in your post - i.e. that Dawkins thought the Cambrian creatures appeared suddenly and mysteriously - is not correct.exactly, no argument here. And no surprise that creationists would refer to it- since that's what they and other skeptics predicted all along.
I don't follow your logic here. Dawkins was simply stating the situation as known at the time - a Pre-Cambrian gap in the fossil record. We now have better evidence of the creatures of that time, e.g. Ediacarans, etc., so the gap in the fossil record is being bridged.Of course I could quote a 'creationist' for the same observation (and then have the source attacked), so Dawkins being a staunch Darwinist- just highlights the bi-partisan agreement here does it not?
Upvote
0