• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Cambrian explosion: Burgess Shale: punctuated equilibrium

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Jazer, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. NailsII

    NailsII Life-long student of biological science

    +46
    Atheist
    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.

    Which is why 'godidit' is such a comeplling answer for you.

    Which just about sums up your knowledge of biology really.

    A very telling comment, how much of Gould's work have you actually read?
     
  2. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    +293
    Atheist
    Single
    I thought so.

    Try not to write stuff that requires a long reply, then :p

    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.

    [​IMG]

    Much, much simpler than a slug.

    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 think we have a knack for misreading each other :D

    Yep, I can agree with all of that.
     
  3. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    +293
    Atheist
    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)
     
  4. NailsII

    NailsII Life-long student of biological science

    +46
    Atheist
    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.....

    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!
     
  5. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    +293
    Atheist
    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...

    :D Have fun! And I might eventually convince myself to buy that book. I'm spending far too much on books lately...
     
  6. NailsII

    NailsII Life-long student of biological science

    +46
    Atheist
    Single
    Breeding D. melanogaster was fun, I have fond memories!

    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....
     
  7. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    I am just about through the preface and I have almost made it to the first chapter.
     
  8. NailsII

    NailsII Life-long student of biological science

    +46
    Atheist
    Single
    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.
     
  9. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    +293
    Atheist
    Single
    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.

    Too many books, too little time :)
     
  10. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  11. rikerjoe

    rikerjoe Guest

    +0
    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:
     
  12. NailsII

    NailsII Life-long student of biological science

    +46
    Atheist
    Single
    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?
    [​IMG]
    Acanthostega

    How about a whale's back legs?

    [​IMG]
    The hind legs of whales « Why Evolution Is True

    Purely looking at the fossil record, your stance is untenable.
     
  13. AnotherAtheist

    AnotherAtheist Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence Supporter

    +551
    Atheist
    In Relationship

    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.

    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.
     
Loading...