Cambrian explosion: Burgess Shale: punctuated equilibrium

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟9,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The most recent common ancestor of bilaterian animals (which could be described in a very simplified way* as "anything with a head and tail end"), which most of the Cambrian explosion was about, is a tough nut. The outgroup (sponges, jellyfish, comb jellies and... Blobs) are a diverse bunch each with their own derived quirks, and there is no living bilaterian that is an obviously good proxy for the last common bilaterian ancestor (or the Urbilaterian for short).
The wierd thing for me from phylogony is that deuterostomes (basically a sub-group of bilaterians for the non-biologists) start with the anus first in embriological development.
This is in contrast to the protosomes which develop mouth first internally.

The point is what? Can you give me a break here, I have a short attention span. I can not deal with long posts. I will see if I can figure out what your saying though.
Which is why 'godidit' is such a comeplling answer for you.

I thought the first animal was a slug.
Which just about sums up your knowledge of biology really.

A lot of Goulds work deals with the explosion at this time and speculation on how the phyla formed.
A very telling comment, how much of Gould's work have you actually read?
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The point is what? Can you give me a break here, I have a short attention span.
I thought so.

I can not deal with long posts.
Try not to write stuff that requires a long reply, then :p

I thought the first animal was a slug.
No. We don't have direct evidence from fossils, but by comparative study of living creatures the first animal might have been something like this guy in the picture below, or a little more complex, like a sponge.

Dayel_Protero_colony_100x.jpg


Much, much simpler than a slug.

That is little more then a digestive system.
Slugs are actually very complex animals. They have guts, muscles, brains, eyes, lungs or gills, kidneys, sometimes extremely convoluted reproductive systems...

Well, they are just snails without shells. (Here's a nice drawing of snail anatomy)

(BTW, Kimberella is NOT a slug.)

I thought that is what I stated. And I agree, that scenario is stated in simple loosely defined terms. I'm just saying that the cryogenic conditions along with the lack of an oxygen atmosphere and ozone layer is very restrictive with the respect of all life and its diversification.
I think we have a knack for misreading each other :D

Yep, I can agree with all of that.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The wierd thing for me from phylogony is that deuterostomes (basically a sub-group of bilaterians for the non-biologists) start with the anus first in embriological development.
This is in contrast to the protosomes which develop mouth first internally.
What's really funny is that many protostomes are not actually protostomous. Quite a few of them are in fact deuterostomous... And I'm delighted to have found a book chapter containing a table of the situation in all kinds of animals from both sides of the Bilateria. Which just so happened to save me from having a huge brain fart about brachiopods... (Note to self: radial cleavage is not deuterostomy :D)
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟9,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
What's really funny is that many protostomes are not actually protostomous. Quite a few of them are in fact deuterostomous... And I'm delighted to have found a book chapter containing a table of the situation in all kinds of animals from both sides of the Bilateria. Which just so happened to save me from having a huge brain fart about brachiopods... (Note to self: radial cleavage is not deuterostomy :D)
Thanks for almost completely turning my world upside down, inside out, etc etc.

Wow, that could be a really interesting read.
Sometimes I wish I'd listened more in zoology. It used to bore me sensless but now I wish I'd just tried that little bit harder to learn more.....

Guess what I''m gonna do on Sunday morning when the meat is in the oven..... I'm gonna read up on Bilateria.
What a rock & roll lifestyle I live!
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for almost completely turning my world upside down, inside out, etc etc.

Wow, that could be a really interesting read.
Sometimes I wish I'd listened more in zoology. It used to bore me sensless but now I wish I'd just tried that little bit harder to learn more.....
I don't think listening more in zoology would've helped much, unless it was a fairly advanced class. I don't remember all the complications being discussed too much in either zoology or dev bio in my undergrad. Of course, half of dev bio was mammals and the other half Drosophila...

Guess what I''m gonna do on Sunday morning when the meat is in the oven..... I'm gonna read up on Bilateria.
What a rock & roll lifestyle I live!
:D Have fun! And I might eventually convince myself to buy that book. I'm spending far too much on books lately...
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟9,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't think listening more in zoology would've helped much, unless it was a fairly advanced class. I don't remember all the complications being discussed too much in either zoology or dev bio in my undergrad. Of course, half of dev bio was mammals and the other half Drosophila...
Breeding D. melanogaster was fun, I have fond memories!

:D Have fun! And I might eventually convince myself to buy that book. I'm spending far too much on books lately...
I'm reading "The Telieving Brain" by Michael Shermer at the mo, a good book (so far). Still got "Paranormality" to read by Richard Wiseman.
Maybe the protostomes will have to wait....
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟9,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am just about through the preface and I have almost made it to the first chapter.
So that will be none then.

But at least you are starting to.
Maybe this thread will gain from your knowledge when you have finished your resesrch.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Breeding D. melanogaster was fun, I have fond memories!
Gah, we never even got to breed them. I think the only practical experience I have with fruit flies is trying to dismantle their maggots. I hate imaginal discs.

I'm reading "The Telieving Brain" by Michael Shermer at the mo, a good book (so far). Still got "Paranormality" to read by Richard Wiseman.
Maybe the protostomes will have to wait....
Too many books, too little time :)
 
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
Maybe this thread will gain from your knowledge when you have finished your resesrch.
There is not much future in it, because Evo simply can not defend their position when it comes to the Cambrian explosion followed by mass extinction. Nothing evolves, nothing changes. In the end 98% perish and only 2% survive to go onto the next age that follows the Cambrian. This happens again and again. Things show up during an explosion. They all disappear in a mass extinction and nothing evolves or changes inbetween. Other then minor adjustments that we call micro evolution. Nothing in the way of macro evolution. The fossil record supports Creationism, not Evolution. Darwin knew this. He hoped that when more fossils were found this would shift things in his favor. Just the opposite proved to be true. The more we know, the more we see that Evolution can not be true. Although we can be grateful to the evos for all the hard work of gathing the natural record. There is much that can be learned from the samples they have gathered.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
R

rikerjoe

Guest
There is not much future in it, because Evo simply can not defend their position when it comes to the Cambrian explosion followed by mass extinction. Nothing evolves, nothing changes. In the end 98% perish and only 2% survive to go onto the next age that follows the Cambrian. This happens again and again. Things show up during an explosion. They all disappear in a mass extinction and nothing evolves or changes inbetween. Other then minor adjustments that we call micro evolution. Nothing in the way of macro evolution. The fossil record supports Creationism, not Evolution. Darwin knew this. He hoped that when more fossils were found this would shift things in his favor. Just the opposite proved to be true. The more we know, the more we see that Evolution can not be true. Although we can be grateful to the evos for all the hard work of gathing the natural record. There is much that can be learned from the samples they have gathered.

Which planet do you come from? :confused: Not a word of all this is true!

Sounds like some massive wishful thinking on your part... :doh:
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟9,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is not much future in it, because Evo simply can not defend their position when it comes to the Cambrian explosion followed by mass extinction. Nothing evolves, nothing changes. In the end 98% perish and only 2% survive to go onto the next age that follows the Cambrian. This happens again and again. Things show up during an explosion. They all disappear in a mass extinction and nothing evolves or changes inbetween. Other then minor adjustments that we call micro evolution. Nothing in the way of macro evolution. The fossil record supports Creationism, not Evolution. Darwin knew this. He hoped that when more fossils were found this would shift things in his favor. Just the opposite proved to be true. The more we know, the more we see that Evolution can not be true. Although we can be grateful to the evos for all the hard work of gathing the natural record. There is much that can be learned from the samples they have gathered.
If 98% of the Cambrian species died off, leaving only 2% that doesn't change or evolve, how do we have such diversity nowadays?
If there were no changes to note of the Cambrian animals, why are there no mammals or reptiles or birds found there - they are only found in much younger rocks.

Darwin noted - quite correctly - that the fossil record in his time was relatively sparce. 150+ years later, it is not so sparce anymore.
Wave after wave of mass extinctions cannot possibly support biblical creationism, and must poke the eye of intelligent design.
The bible tells of one mass extinction, a non-biblical intelligent designer wouldn't be that intelligent if he kept wiping everything out and starting again - unless I have missed something somewhere.

How does an eight-fingered fish-with limbs (that probably couldn't bear its own weight and walk on land) support creationism?
220px-Acanthostega_BW.jpg

Acanthostega

How about a whale's back legs?

dscn5720.jpg

The hind legs of whales « Why Evolution Is True

Purely looking at the fossil record, your stance is untenable.
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Charles Darwin saw Cambrian explosion as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection. That was before The Burgess Shale was discovered by palaeontologist Charles Walcott in 1909. Although it was not until the time of Stephen Jay Gould’s that Darwins theory was in the most trouble. So Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium to keep Darwins theory of slow gradual change over long periods of time from going down the tube. Talk about changing the rules and moving the goal post. Clearly they make this stuff up as they go along and I think they get more of it in their creative writting class then anywhere else. All ranting aside, the bottom line is if you want to make or break Darwins theory the Cambrian Explosion is where all the action is.


Charles Darwin and Henry Bates presented an initial form of the theory of evolution over a hundred years ago. Since then, evidence from the natural world and results of experiments and much theorising by very clever people has developed that theory. Evidence for punctuated equilibrium is evidence that evolution progresses in a manner different from how Darwin and Bates thought it would. It does not counter any claim that evolution happens, it's just part of productive and continuing debate about how it happens.

"Evolution" tends to take the same proteins and put them together in the same way in many different species that do NOT have a common ancestor. This has got to be difficult for a theory of common decent to explain. I could go on but I have already started about five discussions here already.

In the current model of evolution, it is theorised that all living things had a common ancestor. Which species do you propose did not have a common ancestor? A redwood tree and the squirrel that lives in it had a common ancestor with the first Eucaryote, and it's not surprising that they share a lot of biochemistry.
 
Upvote 0