Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
"Benthic" means deep sea dwelling. Notice the bolded non-mineralized shell. So, molluscs did not suddenly appear in the Cambrian, but had an unmineralized ancestor in pre-Cambrian rock.
Saint Philip is using the "sorting by the Flood hypothesis". He has already said that the Burgess Shale and other Cambrian strata are the first Flood sediments. Well, these must be Pre-Flood then. So where are all the invertebrates seen in the Cambrian? They all must have been alive at this time.
The only explanation is that they had not evolved yet and this is their ancestor.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?
In answering the question we must ask the question:
Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?
In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.
Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.
The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.
But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?
So you think that scientists are repressing evidence falsifying evolution?
Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?
This misconception is what this thread is meant to address. The phyla only appear to come out of no where. The Cambrian "explosion" lasted tens of millions of years! That is an enormous amount of time for lots of change to occur in when the conditions are right (like after a huge die off). There is evidence of cnidarians, annelids, arthropods, and echinoderms all being present before the Cambrian (as well as mullosks as detailed in the OP). The reason I only say there is "evidence" is because these organisms are so primitive, and fossil sites are so rare, the taxonomic lines blurr to a great amount. Read here for a description about phenomena regarding higher taxa.
In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.
What? We see a whole lot of taxa creation in the fossil record. That's why there aren't crabs in the Cambrian. Lobsters in the Precambrian. Dinosaurs in the Pennsylvanian. Mammals in the Silurian. Angiosperms in the Triassic. Etc. etc. etc.
Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.
The basic phyla were already existant in the Precambrian. Read the link I cited above. Almost half of all animal phyla are types of worms. There is lots of evidence of lots of types of worms in the Precambrian. Also, because hard body parts and structural supports developed immediatly preceding the Cambrian, the huge huge huge advantage this grants to lifeforms; allowing them to diversify, throw other organisms out of old niches, and then diversify some more.
The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you elaborate?
yes, please explain to us how the entire animal kingdom PE'd at once.
As I said before in my post, a large portion of the basic animal phyla were already existant. The idea that these basic phyla managed to form all the others in the 30 million years immediatly following a huge die off is far from far-fetched.
Originally Posted by Vance
Can you explain PE again. It might be useful right about here.
I dont' know a good definition off the top of my head but punctuated equilibrium is descussed at great length (from the man himself ) here.
The quote at the end is great.
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Last edited by troodon; 6th September 2003 at 09:57 PM.
After a large extinction evolution predicts a huge explosion in diversity. This has been shown to be true in the Cambrian, in the Permian, in the Triassic, and in the Tertiary.
You claimed that there was a huge explosion in design in which "the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage"
I showed that this is not true. Several major phyla already existed in the Precambrian and there is a gap of several tens of millions of years for these animals to "suddenly appear fully developed". To quote Gould from the link I posted earlier, "Five to ten thousand years may be an eternity in human time, but such an interval represents an earthly instant in almost any geological situation."
Also, you did not address any of my post. If any of it is ad hoc, please point to specific portions and not use a blanket statement.
Originally Posted by weblord
can it grow on tropical soil like in our country?
Can what grow?
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth.
Yes, common ancestry is presented in schools factually. As is gravity, round earth, cell theory, and heliocentrism among others.
The reason for this is that the evidence is so overwhelming in all these fields that it is perverse to withhold provisional asssent.
In answering the question we must ask the question:
Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?
That is the myth that this thread will dispel. They don't "suddenly" appear "fully developed with no ancestral lineage." The abstract in the OP gives an ancestor to molluscs. Or didn't you understand that?
In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.
Actually, you do. What are phyla? Or any of the other taxa you mentioned? They are groups of species. So, the accurate way to state this is that the representatives of the major phyla are identifiable in the Cambrian. You don't have the thousands or tens of thousands of species of each phyla in the Cambrian. Instead you have 1- 10 species.
The reason for this is that, for any orgnanism, you have to put it somewhere in the classification system. There is no "not quite in phylum Annelid (worms) or phylum Mollusca (molluscs)" There is no "looks a little like later molluscs but not a lot like them". Systematicists (those who classify) have decided to put organisms in the higher taxa their descendents ended up in.
So, each species in the Cambrian has its own species name which means it is in a genus (since a species name is the genus + species), family, order, class, and phylum. As I say, many phylum in the Cambrian are represented by less than 5 species.
And this is exactly what evolution says should happen. Since phyla are groups of species, how should they start? As a single species!!! Actually, they should start as a variety in some other species. But basically, the ancestry of two phyla is when one species splits in two and Species A goes down one path so that its descendents are classed as one phyla and Species B goes down another path, diverging from Species A, so that its descendents are another phyla.
Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor.
You know, ArkGuy, here you are just repeating from a website and not looking at the OP! That paper does show slow divergence from a common ancestor! The ancestor was very similar to the molluscs in the Cambrian but the shell wasn't hard.
If you want people to listen to you, then you have to listen yourself. This post is a knee jerk reaction without even looking at the OP.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
) 
Linear Mode
