Cambrian Explosion

[Jet Black]

that's exactly what i've been saying - either the order in genesis is falsified, or it is entirely unfalsifiable. take your pick. i vote for the former, but either way, it ain't science.

I would be fascinated to know if there was anything that would falsify genesis that wouldn't falsify evolution as well. though granted there is still this strange position in which the sun formed after life, meaning that the age of the sun must be off by about a billion years.

 

[Oncedeceived]

yes. you are claiming basically that several taxonomic levels of plants - angiosperms, gymnosperms, vascular plants and their pollen along with their related fauna, just happen to have not fossilized for hundreds of millions of years. For hundreds of millions of years we are just unlucky to have not found a single example of Viridiplantae?

Land plants are found in the Ordovician around 500-440 myr, from the late precambrian that is only 44 million years to 140 million years. We find grasses present in dinosuar dung in the Cretaceous which is 146-65 myr but grasses themselves are not found until the Tertiary which is around 80 million years. So we know that we have grasses present for at least 80 million years without being in the fossil record. No grasses, no pollen...no nothing but it was there. So I think it is not out of the realm of possiblity that grasses could have been around much earlier and not left any record just as it was during the 80 million years that we have evidence of.

I could say the same about the mammals couldn't I? and if not, why not? Perhaps all the therapsids were wandering round in the precambrian just luckily managing to avoid fossilization along with the vascular plants, while some groups split off to form the mammals, ungulates and so on.

You could but then you would have to have some support to suggest it. Eighty million years is a very long time to have grasses in existance and have no record of it. So it is not so difficult to surmise that the possiblity is there for them to be around at least 80 million years or more earlier without record as well.

no no, I mean the earliest pollinating or polleniverous insects. to get away with your suggestion you would end up relying on rather alot of convergent evolution, since the soft bodied polliniverous insects would have to evolve to look as if they are the descendents of the hard bodied insects that have the appearange of being their ancestors. Unless of course there are a bunch of other soft bodied pollinating basal insects that we haven't actually found yet that died off for a few hundred million years though existed right up to the silurian when we first see the vascular plants, but then died off when the hard bodied insects (after all this time) finally got round to being pollinating and polleniverous insects?

I'm still looking for that article I'll try again tonight.

 

[caravelair]

I would be fascinated to know if there was anything that would falsify genesis that wouldn't falsify evolution as well. though granted there is still this strange position in which the sun formed after life, meaning that the age of the sun must be off by about a billion years.

eh, what's a billion years here or there? close enough.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No more time, I have to go back to work.

 

[Oncedeceived]

that's exactly what i've been saying - either the order in genesis is falsified, or it is entirely unfalsifiable. take your pick. i vote for the former, but either way, it ain't science.

There are two things that I think need to be clarified.

1. My hypothesis is not anti-evolution.

2. My hypothesis is my viewpoint based on certain scientific data. My hypothesis is not "science" in itself. What I mean is that Creation is not a Science, it the act of God which we now look back on.

 

[Jet Black]

Land plants are found in the Ordovician around 500-440 myr, from the late precambrian that is only 44 million years to 140 million years. We find grasses present in dinosuar dung in the Cretaceous which is 146-65 myr but grasses themselves are not found until the Tertiary which is around 80 million years. So we know that we have grasses present for at least 80 million years without being in the fossil record. No grasses, no pollen...no nothing but it was there. So I think it is not out of the realm of possiblity that grasses could have been around much earlier and not left any record just as it was during the 80 million years that we have evidence of.

you are missing all the intermediate groups again. Yes there were land plants, but no examples of vascular plants, which are a crown group. If we can't even find any vascular plants, then the odds of finding grasses, which are a subset of a subset of vascular plants are getting rather remote.

You could but then you would have to have some support to suggest it. Eighty million years is a very long time to have grasses in existance and have no record of it. So it is not so difficult to surmise that the possiblity is there for them to be around at least 80 million years or more earlier without record as well.

remember that if you want grasses in the precambrian, you need at least vascular plants in the precambrian, then we need the flowering plants in the precambrian, and we don't see any evidence of either.

I'm still looking for that article I'll try again tonight.

precambrian polleniverous insects?

 

[caravelair]

There are two things that I think need to be clarified.

1. My hypothesis is not anti-evolution.

nor did i ever say it was.

2. My hypothesis is my viewpoint based on certain scientific data. My hypothesis is not "science" in itself. What I mean is that Creation is not a Science, it the act of God which we now look back on.

but if it is unfalsifiable, then it is equivalent to last-thursdayism, and thus impossible to support with evidence, as my previous example demonstrated. if it is not unfalsifiable, then it is falsified.

 

[jlerollin]

camrian explosion explodes evolutionary thinking
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html

hello just found this thread havent had much time to read everything but have recetly read about the cambrian it seems clear toe posits a common ancestor cell and gradual modification of this cell over time by relatively statistical processes to come up with dell species 2 whic can turn into cell species 3 which may become multicellular 4which may split gradually into muliticellular 5 which can turn into multicellular 7 eventually multicellular 4 and multicellular say 10 will be so different that they will ditinctly different in body plan with a smooth transition history preserved in the intermediate forms of the evolutionary path.

if this is accepted 9i have sppeded up the process for brevity of expression) this should be the story for all oft the major body plans in the cambrian. trillobites and snails are quite different and quite specialised creatures technology wise. withe the stated diversity of trillobites alone it is obvious that significant portion of time is necessary to get the variaty of species once the body plan is fixed let alone the many separate paths from the common ancesor to the specialised format we find.

so to answer carvelairs query where in the fossil record is the 10's of separate evolutionary paths from the common ancestor to trillobites, or to horse shoe crabs or to snails , or to octopuses, or as begs the question to any other of the types of plants and creatures that abruptly appear in the cambrian .

we all know the answer no where! we still have snails today! which means that there is no evolutionary evidence in the fossil record for my teacher to tell me that snails evolved they were here in the cambrian! they have no history prior to the cambrian showing the developmental pathway. therfore the theory of evolution for the evolution of snails from the common ancestor has no basis in the fossil record! it is the multiplication of this argument over every cambrian body plan that kind of does it for those who believe the complexity of multicellular organisms like the snail and the octopus was not and could not be the result of random mutation of the dna in a single cell over millions of years. there is nothing in the foissil record to to drive scientists to that conclusion.

i have only just heard of the cambrian explosion but if darwin knew about it and wrote he was looking for it to be ameliorated then to me as well as darwin common descent (from an ancestral amoeba) is dead before it has begun in a dramatic fashion relative to the fossil record and some mass burial of a diverse specially created group of organisms is seemingly consistent with the cambrian basicly why does no one talk about the cambrian explosion in schools!the actual fossil record is the opposite of what we would expect to find if evolution was true and fossils are made out to be evolutions biggest weapon the public is being deceived on mass the actual macro feature of the fossil record shouts a large question over evolutionary propaganda

 

[jlerollin]

bump

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, I would like some questions of Jet and Caravelair.

1. What theory do you subscribe to for the appearance of life on Earth and what is the evidence you feel supports that theory.

2. Jet, if you feel that the Cambrian era is not a special occurrance, please explain what you feel is the best way to view the record and please provide the evidence you think supports your viewpoint.

3, Do you think that life could have formed without the sun and give your reasons for your viewpoint.

4. Why do suppose that grasses could have been present for at least 125 million years without being found in the fossil record?

Thanks guys.

 

[Jet Black]

i have only just heard of the cambrian explosion

and yet you are still happy to talk about it as if you know what you are on about.

my advice to you: don't.

 

[Jet Black]

I'd rather we went over the points I was raising first. sorry if that sounds awkward, but it gets awkward since we will just end up having to come back to my points later anyway. I don't see the sense in pointlessly abandoning the current thread of discussion and starting fresh.

 

[caravelair]

i think i'm gonna have to agree with jet black on this one. i would like you to address the points i raised.

one thing though...

4. Why do suppose that grasses could have been present for at least 125 million years without being found in the fossil record?

i thought the article you posted said grasses were found 125 million years AGO, meaning they were missing between 70 mya and 125mya, so they would be absent for 125 - 70 = 55my, not 125my. is this right, or did i read it wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, we will stay with this for the time being. I went back and re-read some of the posts in the thread. (That is why I am not going to respond to anything right now, I don't have time now). I'll get back into this later then.

 

[Jet Black]

i thought the article you posted said grasses were found 125 million years AGO, meaning they were missing between 70 mya and 125mya, so they would be absent for 125 - 70 = 55my, not 125my. is this right, or did i read it wrong?

no, direct evidence of grass has only been found as long ago as 70 million years. the point about the grass found in the dinosaur dung, is that it suggests that grasses were already diverse at that point, since there were already phytoliths from quite advanced grass types, and so grasses may have evolved around 100 million years ago. It's still rather a strain saying that they were around in the precambrian, becuse at least two levels of taxonomic groups have not been found that far back, and there is not enough genetic separation between them to even hint at precambrian grasses.

 

[caravelair]

no, direct evidence of grass has only been found as long ago as 70 million years. the point about the grass found in the dinosaur dung, is that it suggests that grasses were already diverse at that point, since there were already phytoliths from quite advanced grass types, and so grasses may have evolved around 100 million years ago.

still confused. if they evolved 100my ago, and were directly found 70mya, then they were only absent from the fossil record for 30my... right?

It's still rather a strain saying that they were around in the precambrian, becuse at least two levels of taxonomic groups have not been found that far back, and there is not enough genetic separation between them to even hint at precambrian grasses.

wouldn't absence of pollen in the fossil record indicate an absence of angiosperms (including grasses)? i'm guessing that the absence in the fossil record we are talking about might not have had an absence of pollen, since we might not be able to tell that any pollen we find comes from grasses specifically.

 

[Jet Black]

still confused. if they evolved 100my ago, and were directly found 70mya, then they were only absent from the fossil record for 30my... right?

yes. there are a few different dates on the possible oldest grasses based on those discoveries - 30-50 million years.

wouldn't absence of pollen in the fossil record indicate an absence of angiosperms (including grasses)?

yes, not just angiosperms, but all the spermatophytes.

i'm guessing that the absence in the fossil record we are talking about might not have had an absence of pollen, since we might not be able to tell that any pollen we find comes from grasses specifically.

indeed - and the argument that grasses were around in the precambrian is really stretching it, since it basically means that we can't have found any pollen or vascular plant remains for hundreds of millions of years, even though they were supposedly there. It's the same as with cows. by the argument that Oncedecieved is using to suggest that there were precambrian grasses, one could argue also for precambrian cows. Just say that coincidentally, for hundreds of millions of years, we found no therapsids or mammals, and then suddenly we start finding therapsids, and then later we start finding mammals. Not only does she have to explain why no vascular plants have been found for such a long time, she also has to explain why, when we do start finding them, do we find the primitive gymnosperms first, followed by more advanced gymnosperms, followed by primitive angiosperms, then followed by the more advanced angiosperms, and then followed by grasses. It seems pretty bizarre to suggest that all these plants lived together for hundreds of millions of years without any being found, and then when we do find them, they all start popping out of the cracks in the order expected by evolution. It makes one wonder why, when there are perfectly good vascular plants around, that the Rhyniophyta, the Polyphodiophyta and the Pinophyta spread so rapidly and became dominant for so long (again in the same order as expected through evolution)

 

[caravelair]

yes. there are a few different dates on the possible oldest grasses based on those discoveries - 30-50 million years.

ah, yes. see that's what i've been trying to say. oncedeceived said that they had been absent from the fossil record for 125my, which is not what her article indicates.

yes, not just angiosperms, but all the spermatophytes.

do you know if there are any gaps in the fossil record for pollen? i tried looking on google, but i couldn't find what i was looking for.

indeed - and the argument that grasses were around in the precambrian is really stretching it, since it basically means that we can't have found any pollen or vascular plant remains for hundreds of millions of years, even though they were supposedly there.

since plants, according to genesis, are the first life forms present on earth, they would have to have been absent for billions of years, since we have found other life forms 3.5bya, if i remember correctly, they would have to have been around for at least that long.

It's the same as with cows. by the argument that Oncedecieved is using to suggest that there were precambrian grasses, one could argue also for precambrian cows.

indeed, and so if we accept that argument as valid, then it would mean that basically any claim about the fossil record is unfalsifiable, and if i recall correctly, the only thing she claimed to be falsifiable in genesis, was the order that life should appear in the fossil record.

Just say that coincidentally, for hundreds of millions of years, we found no therapsids or mammals, and then suddenly we start finding therapsids, and then later we start finding mammals. Not only does she have to explain why no vascular plants have been found for such a long time, she also has to explain why, when we do start finding them, do we find the primitive gymnosperms first, followed by more advanced gymnosperms, followed by primitive angiosperms, then followed by the more advanced angiosperms, and then followed by grasses. It seems pretty bizarre to suggest that all these plants lived together for hundreds of millions of years without any being found, and then when we do find them, they all start popping out of the cracks in the order expected by evolution. It makes one wonder why, when there are perfectly good vascular plants around, that the Rhyniophyta, the Polyphodiophyta and the Pinophyta spread so rapidly and became dominant for so long (again in the same order as expected through evolution)

yes, i would love to know what she makes of this.

oncedeceived, if you get the time, could you comment on the above paragraph? thanks in advance.

 

[JohnR7]

we all know the answer no where! we still have snails today! which means that there is no evolutionary evidence in the fossil record for my teacher to tell me that snails evolved they were here in the cambrian! they have no history prior to the cambrian showing the developmental pathway. therfore the theory of evolution for the evolution of snails from the common ancestor has no basis in the fossil record! it is the multiplication of this argument over every cambrian body plan that kind of does it for those who believe the complexity of multicellular organisms like the snail and the octopus was not and could not be the result of random mutation of the dna in a single cell over millions of years. there is nothing in the foissil record to to drive scientists to that conclusion.

So are you suggesting that shells appeared rather quickly with little of any predecessor and only slight changes took place after they first appeared?

 

[Edx]

So are you suggesting that shells appeared rather quickly with little of any predecessor and only slight changes took place after they first appeared?

She is a Creationist, why ask a question as if she isnt?