Cambrian Explosion

[Joman]

The fossil record does not contain DNA, which is required for the explanation that you are asking for.

In the case of the cambrian layer...the fossil record does not contain fossils, which are required to even attempt an explanation in accordance with the ToE.

Joman.

 

[KerrMetric]

In the case of the cambrian layer...the fossil record does not contain fossils, which are required to even attempt an explanation in accordance with the ToE.

Joman.

If it has no fossils then why does this thread exist?

 

[Tomk80]

Alas...there's no fossil record of a common ancestor to the cambrian layer. And, decreasing numbers of phyla is contrary to "survival of the fittest" as a powerful mechanism useful to the ToE. Wouldn't "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" forces have prevented such great extinction?

No, it's not. Species that would become phyla in the future died out. But the species that did not diversified, into orders, families etc. Remember, evolution is a process of diversification of already existing groups. That no new phyla evolved, is thus completely in line with the theory of evolution.

And no, natural selection does not prevent great extinctions. Great extinctions have always been triggered by great changes in environment, causing many creatures adapted to the previous environment to go extinct.

Look it up yourself the net is available and easy to use

The micro-organism's before the cambrian layer are few in number and are as stated (MICRO) in size. Macro organisms are glaringly different than the micro. And, the diversity of the Cambrian layer is huge compared to anything found prior to itNo, they're not glaringly different.

I don't see why I should do the work to support your claim. Why should I do your work, if you're to lazy to do it yourself?


And I disagree that 'macro organisms' are so glaringly different. They're not. Many of the micro organisms, such as Volvox, already show the level of cell specialization necessary to create 'macro organisms'. The only thing needed further is a skeleton, but that's a simple question of using calcium, which is also already done by micro organisms in an organized way.

True. But, not before it. How is that possilbe within hte ToE?

Because the Cambrian explosion saw the rise of creatures with skeletons. That hadn't happened before. There's a first time for everything.

And, the logic is?

Joman.

That a new niche (ie, environment) opens up new possibilties that couldn't be explored previously. For example, the spread of grasses caused the existence of plains. This caused a new niche for animals that could live on plains to evolve. Hence, we see a rapid development of all kinds of animals that can live on grassy plains. The new environment opened up new possibilities for new evolutionary pathways.

 

[Joman]

So to say that well the Cambrian had more phyla why aren't there more phyla today the Theory of evolution is busted, is missing the point.

You wish it were missing the point.
Also, don't miss the point of there being no record prior to the cambrian that can explain the cambrian.

Joman.

 

[Joman]

If it has no fossils then why does this thread exist?

If you can ever answer that question you will have discovered why you thinking is fallacious. And, why I said to that you need to think.

Joman.

 

[KerrMetric]

If you can ever answer that question you will have discovered why you thinking is fallacious. And, why I said to that you need to think.

Joman.

er...we have been discussing the Cambrian explosion. If there were no fossils we couldn't be talking about it.

 

[Split Rock]

You wish it were missing the point.
Also, don't miss the point of there being no record prior to the cambrian that can explain the cambrian.

Joman.

Incorrect. The Vendian fauna include such multicellular organisms, including some with the segmentation we see in the trilobites and others of the Cambrian.

"Since Darwin's time, the fossil history of life on Earth has been pushed back to 3.5 billion years before the present. Most of these fossils are microscopic bacteria and algae. However, in the latest Proterozoic — a time period now called the Vendian, or the Ediacaran, and lasting from about 650 to 540 million years ago — macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms can be found in a few localities around the world, confirming Darwin's expectations." (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html)

To see fossils of these critters, see: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html

 

[TheInstant]

You wish it were missing the point.

I haven't heard this rebuttal since grade school.

Sorry, I just thought that was funny. I'll be leaving now.

 

[Joman]

No, it's not. Species that would become phyla in the future died out. But the species that did not diversified, into orders, families etc. Remember, evolution is a process of diversification of already existing groups. That no new phyla evolved, is thus completely in line with the theory of evolution.

You just admitted (as you should) that the ToE allows for the evolution of new phyla. But, you also admit that it didn't since the Cambrian explosion. That coupled with the fact that no fossil evidence prior to the Cambrian layer reveals it as having occurred prior to the Cambrian layer concludes the ToE as false according to the fossil record.

Remember, evolution is a process of diversification of already existing groups.

Let's get real for a moment. If you believe that all the "groups" just popped up out of nowhere (scientifically speaking) then it can happen anytime, anywhere on earth and that isn't scientific is it?

I don't see why I should do the work to support your claim. Why should I do your work, if you're to lazy to do it yourself?

You just stated here that if you did the work you would find that it supports my claim. And, of course that is true, and is most probably the real reason you won't go do your own research. I'm making the point that many of you are so biased that you don't know how to use the net to review opposition to many of your false belief's concerning science.

And I disagree that 'macro organisms' are so glaringly different. They're not. Many of the micro organisms, such as Volvox, already show the level of cell specialization necessary to create 'macro organisms'. The only thing needed further is a skeleton, but that's a simple question of using calcium, which is also already done by micro organisms in an organized way.

You are naive and lack insight. For example, there's nothing simple about skeletons.

Because the Cambrian explosion saw the rise of creatures with skeletons. That hadn't happened before. There's a first time for everything.

Your being simplistic.

That a new niche (ie, environment) opens up new possibilties that couldn't be explored previously. For example, the spread of grasses caused the existence of plains. This caused a new niche for animals that could live on plains to evolve. Hence, we see a rapid development of all kinds of animals that can live on grassy plains. The new environment opened up new possibilities for new evolutionary pathways.

This is simplistic also.

Joman.

 

[Joman]

er...we have been discussing the Cambrian explosion. If there were no fossils we couldn't be talking about it.

I think you words have come back to haunt you. Go do some more reading.

Joman.

 

[Joman]

Incorrect. The Vendian fauna include such multicellular organisms, including some with the segmentation we see in the trilobites and others of the Cambrian.

You are being simplistic also.

Joman.

Ps. I gotta go.

 

[Tomk80]

You just admitted (as you should) that the ToE allows for the evolution of new phyla. But, you also admit that it didn't since the Cambrian explosion. That coupled with the fact that no fossil evidence prior to the Cambrian layer reveals it as having occurred prior to the Cambrian layer concludes the ToE as false according to the fossil record.

I didn't state anything of the above. Read my post again and actually reply to what I wrote. If you have questions, you can ask them, but I expect you to reply to what I actually wrote.

Let's get real for a moment. If you believe that all the "groups" just popped up out of nowhere (scientifically speaking) then it can happen anytime, anywhere on earth and that isn't scientific is it?

This also is not what I stated. See above and do the same for this statement. Hint, it helps if you don't seperate sentences that are in the same paragraph. They aren't in the same paragraph for fun, they are in the same paragraph because they belong together.

You just stated here that if you did the work you would find that it supports my claim. And, of course that is true, and is most probably the real reason you won't go do your own research. I'm making the point that many of you are so biased that you don't know how to use the net to review opposition to many of your false belief's concerning science.[/qutoe]
I didn't. I stated that you should do the work to support your claims, not me. Regardless of whether they are true or false.

You are naive and lack insight. For example, there's nothing simple about skeletons.

Pot, meet kettle.

Question, do you know what Volvox is?

Your being simplistic.

This is simplistic also.

Joman.

It might be simplistic. Being simplistic doesn't make it any less logical or any less correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, if we travel back in time and find no record of the phyla prior to the cambrian layer then some thing is wrong with athe ToE.

Phyla are a human construct. Evolution only produces new species, it does not produce new phyla. Humans produce phyla which are categories into which species are placed by humans.

For a new phyla to be added you need a single species that spawned several descendents early in life's history.

And, if you say that, no new phyla was evolved since the cambrian layer was deposited and is a prediction of the ToE, then where did the cambrian phyla come from?

From the diversification of eukaryotes. All of the phyla seen in the Cambrian are either prokaryotes or eukaryotes.

I'm beginning to wonder if you realize what your conceding. Are you saying that the ToE cannot predict the origin of all phyla?

It can predict relationships, but there is not enough evidence to discern the specific DNA changes.

However, the ToE is magical in it's predictions about where things came from.

What is magical about random mutation and natural selection? You can observe it in action in today's world. However, I have never seen God pop a new species into existence. Now which one is magic again?

The "magical" powers of the ToE are veiled in eons of time. Thus, when confronted with the cambrian layer the ToE suddenly is seen for what it is...the magical appearance of lifeforms without any evidence of an observable descent or ascent of life forms.

The ToE does not say that lifeforms appear magically in the Cambrian, that is your idea. The ToE states that the fossils we do have from the Cambrian do not represent all of the species that lived during that era due to the rarity of fossilization and the destruction of most Cambrian strata due to geologic processes. The ToE proposes that these lifeforms diversified through a process that is observable in today's world, namely mutation, selection, and speciation.

The hypothesis that there isn't any God who did anything is scientifically unprovable. Thus, the belief that there is, a God who did something, is rational and cannot be refuted by science.

The existence or non-existence of God is not even a question Science can ask, which is why creationism has no place in science or a science classroom. The same applies to Leprechauns building Stonehenge and Flying Reindeer pulling a sleigh.

So, it isn't an excuse but a rational belief that the complexity of life, and it's diversity as well as the orderliness of nature about us is the conception of a complex, diverse and orderly mind able to use sufficient power so as to fabricate it.

It's a belief based on faith and faith alone.

Granted that science cannot establish; neither, the existence

nor the character of God, it does not follow that there is no God. To attempt to claim so is to rely on an argument from incredulity...which is specious.

It's Occam's Razor. The explanation with the least number of assumptions is usually the best. Mutations, natural selection, and speciation can be observed. The same can not be said of God.

To believe that "God did it" is far more rational than to believe that "No-one did it".

That's what they used to say about lightning. So I guess you believe in Zeus as well.

You evolutionists can't scintifically prove the existence of a "common ancestor" any better than I can prove "God is my ancestor".

Joman.

Science doesn't do proof. Proof is for math and alcohol. Science does hypothesis and evidence, something that creationists run away from.

 

[Split Rock]

You are being simplistic also.

Joman.

Ps. I gotta go.

That's it????

You can't do better than "you're simplistic?" You believe God blew into some dirt and Adam popped out, and I'm being simplistic??

 

[Mocca]

Humans defined phylum. They said "these species are in a phylum, and all their ancestors will also be in that same phylum." Humans defined phylum. I don't see why some still don't see this point, even though it's been repeated over and over.

 

[caravelair]

I am not giving this as a scientific hypothesis, I am basing a hypothesis (non-scientific) on scientific evidence to support or falsify that hypothesis.

this makes no sense. a hypothesis that is not scientific is not subject to the scientific method, and therefore science cannot support or falsify it.

example: i could claim that the universe was created last thursday with the appearance of great age and each of us created with the false memories of our former lives.

this is an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific idea. let's see if i can "use science" to support it! well, if my idea is true, then the earth should have the appearance of great age. science says the earth does look very old, therefore this supports my idea!

oh wait... no it doesn't. this is no different from what you are doing, and what you are doing here is no less pointless.

 

[Oncedeceived]

this makes no sense. a hypothesis that is not scientific is not subject to the scientific method, and therefore science cannot support or falsify it.

Untrue. The definition:
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

example: i could claim that the universe was created last thursday with the appearance of great age and each of us created with the false memories of our former lives.

Science would falsify such a hypothesis. Carbon dating of antiquities and other factors would show this hypothsis false.

this is an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific idea. let's see if i can "use science" to support it! well, if my idea is true, then the earth should have the appearance of great age. science says the earth does look very old, therefore this supports my idea!

Untrue as shown above.

oh wait... no it doesn't. this is no different from what you are doing, and what you are doing here is no less pointless

Again, untrue. Scientific data is Scientific data regardless of what the hypothesis is.

 

[Edx]

Untrue. The definition:
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

All of science is tenative. A scientific theory must be scientific, as must a scientific hypothesis.

Science would falsify such a hypothesis. Carbon dating of antiquities and other factors would show this hypothsis false.

No it would not, thats the whole point!

Ed

 

[caravelair]

Untrue. The definition:
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

and if this hypothesis is not SCIENTIFIC, which yours is not, then it is not subject to the scientific method, and therefore science cannot say anything about it, and cannot possibly support it.

Science would falsify such a hypothesis. Carbon dating of antiquities and other factors would show this hypothsis false.

no, i said the universe was created with the appearance of great age. thus, according to my hypothesis, we would expect radiometric dating to give us great ages.

Untrue as shown above.

no, you just misunderstood my hypothesis. if it is correct, we would expect to see great ages, because the universe was created with the false appearance of great age.

Again, untrue. Scientific data is Scientific data regardless of what the hypothesis is.

data is data. whether or not that data makes a hypothesis likely to be true or not depends on whether or not that hypothesis passes the scientific method of testing. if it cannot be tested by the scientific method, then the data is irrelevant to the hypothesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

and if this hypothesis is not SCIENTIFIC, which yours is not, then it is not subject to the scientific method, and therefore science cannot say anything about it, and cannot possibly support it.

You do know don't you that you are sounding somewhat illogical?

You seem so biased against my position that you can not look at this in a purely logical mindset.

I gave examples of Genesis that could indeed be falsified by Scientific data. If it can be falsified then it must also on the other hand be able to support it. IF like so many skeptics on this forum claim, "Creation has been falsified many years ago", then how can it then be twisted around in your argument that it is not subject to scientific method.

no, i said the universe was created with the appearance of great age. thus, according to my hypothesis, we would expect radiometric dating to give us great ages.

The universe yes, but what of man made articles that show that mankind had to be present prior to Thursday?

no, you just misunderstood my hypothesis. if it is correct, we would expect to see great ages, because the universe was created with the false appearance of great age.

Ignoratio elenchi

data is data. whether or not that data makes a hypothesis likely to be true or not depends on whether or not that hypothesis passes the scientific method of testing. if it cannot be tested by the scientific method, then the data is irrelevant to the hypothesis.

I have shown that it can be tested by the scientific method.