Cambrian Explosion

[Loudmouth]

Not at all. You would agree that all phyla alive today were present in the Cambrian? That is my point.

"Phyla" is an arbitrary category devised by humans. It is completely possible that a single species in today's world could speciate into a large enough group to be classified as a phyla. According to the theory of evolution, every phyla should be present in the Cambrian.

What you are missing is that the Linnean classification we have today is being projected onto the fossil record. The earliest and most successful lineages are put into the higher categories.

The fact that it occurred over millions of years does not discredit the Genesis narrative. I need not "play with words" and Science provides evidence for my hypothesis.

What is your hypothesis? What potential observation would falsify your hypothesis?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Perhaps you missed the part when I said that millions of years had no bearing on my hypothesis nor on the Genesis narrative. I understand the time involved and I have no confusion with the term "sudden" when used. I didn't claim it meant instantaneous.



Your point is??? Again, this is not a problem for my hypothesis.

I wan't directing my post at you.

 

[jinkazama]

Creationism has been debunked long times ago, get with the TIMES, no offense.

 

[Split Rock]

Amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals (including whales) = Chordata
Crabs, Lobsters, Shrimp = Arthropoda

Couldn't have answered it better myself. [

Really? Are both you saying that you have no problem with the evolution of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals from the primitive chordate Pikaia (or a close relative)?
(see: http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/burgessshale/chordate.html)

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Phyla" is an arbitrary category devised by humans.

True, as well as the theory of evolution, Linnean classification and geology. It doesn't make a difference what we call it now does it?

It is completely possible that a single species in today's world could speciate into a large enough group to be classified as a phyla. According to the theory of evolution, every phyla should be present in the Cambrian.

How would the theory of evolution predict that every phyla would be present in the Cambrian? That just doesn't make sense to me. It could of just as well have been an other era and still be considered "predicted" in the TOE.

What you are missing is that the Linnean classification we have today is being projected onto the fossil record. The earliest and most successful lineages are put into the higher categories.

Again, it doesn't matter. Why do you see this as important against my view point.

What is your hypothesis? What potential observation would falsify your hypothesis?

IF man was present in the fossil record before other life forms. IF life formed on land rather than in water for instance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Creationism has been debunked long times ago, get with the TIMES, no offense.

No it hasn't. Please tell me what part of my hypothesis has been debunked

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wan't directing my post at you.

Ok, who then were you directing it to?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Really? Are both you saying that you have no problem with the evolution of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals from the primitive chordate Pikaia (or a close relative)?
(see: http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/burgessshale/chordate.html)

Correct, to a point. I believe that evolutionary processes are present throughout time but some of the evolutionary "theories" I do have some problems with. It is complicated.

 

[Split Rock]

Correct, to a point. I believe that evolutionary processes are present throughout time but some of the evolutionary "theories" I do have some problems with. It is complicated.

Well, that is interesting. Which theories do you have problems with? I assume the common decent of humans and other apes is one of them?

 

[Split Rock]

I'm still wondering why they listed whales after they already listed mammals.

Gee, thanks for that important contribution. Can you answer the questions I asked?

 

[Loudmouth]

True, as well as the theory of evolution, Linnean classification and geology. It doesn't make a difference what we call it now does it?

Species is the only objective division seen in nature. Every other category is simply done to make things more understandable to humans.

How would the theory of evolution predict that every phyla would be present in the Cambrian? That just doesn't make sense to me. It could of just as well have been an other era and still be considered "predicted" in the TOE.

According to the ToE, the ancestors of the species we see today existed in the Cambrian. Therefore, every phyla alive today had to be alive in the Cambrian. Remember that the Linnean system is a post hoc explanation or classification. The earliest life had to be put in the highest levels of the Linnean system for it to work.

Again, it doesn't matter. Why do you see this as important against my view point.

I don't know what your point is, other than your personal incredulity that all of the phyla would be present in the Cambrian if evolution were true.

IF man was present in the fossil record before other life forms. IF life formed on land rather than in water for instance.

First, what is your hypothesis?

If humans were the first life forms it would falsify evolution as well.

If life formed on land instead of water it would also falsify several hypotheses within abiogenesis.

What observations would be expected if evolution were true that would in turn falsify your hypothesis? In other words, what predictions does your hypothesis make that are different from the predictions that the ToE makes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, that is interesting. Which theories do you have problems with? I assume the common decent of humans and other apes is one of them?

Honestly yes, but probably not like you think I might have. I think that it plausible in that God could indeed have created mankind from the same line as other apes but I feel the evidence has interpretations based on a priori presuppositions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Honestly yes, but probably not like you think I might have. I think that it plausible in that God could indeed have created mankind from the same line as other apes but I feel the evidence has interpretations based on a priori presuppositions.

Such as? Perhaps you could use ERV's as an example?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Not at all. You would agree that all phyla alive today were present in the Cambrian? That is my point.

IIRC, there were a couple phyla that appeared after the Cambrian and a number of phyla that went extinct. Plus, even if the phyla were present, most of the modern species weren't.

 

[Praxiteles]

1.
Not all Creationists are YEC.

Verily, you are correct. However, (unfortunate as it is) the term creationist is more frequently used as shorthand for Young Earth Creationist than it is for any other definition of the term. And it is that definition which I understand the OP to be using.

In context, that's how he seems to be using it. In its broader definition the question is almost moot, since the many varieties of creationist would answer the question differently.

Wrong again.

I'm never wrong. Just ask my dog.
But seriously: *strains* The answer pertains to YEC.

I think it supports Creation

No doubt you do.

My post, as mentioned previously, pertains to YEC, but what I am about to say here is relevant to you and creationists of all stripes as well.

The OP referred to 'their theory'. There is no scientific theory of creation. Creationism (of whatever flavour) is a faith position, and not a scientific one.

Disproven by all of the above.

Oh yeah? OH YEAH?

Well disprove this!!!!

 

[Lilandra]

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/Cambrian.htm
this is what the species that were members of the Cambrian era phyla resembled. The great majority of species (zebras,apes, felines) that are alive today were not alive then. These life forms were either ancestral to current day species or died out during the Permian extinction later.

Much of the diverse "explosion" of species during the Cambrian were modifications of body plans. 96 percent of these strange critters became extinct after the Permian extinction.

One characteristic that is retained from these ancient phyla in modern animals is bilateralness. The body plan is quite sturdy and became set by the evolution of hox genes. Hox genes control the top to bottom appearance of body parts. Manipulations in these genes can produce 4 winged flies rather than the standard 2.

 

[Praxiteles]

.

Hey there Lilz - where did you get that photo of my in-laws?

 

[Lilandra]

Happy birthday!

Forgot the link; edited it to put it under the picture. It is an artist's rendering of the fossils found in the Burgess Shale.

Hey there Lilz - where did you get that photo of my in-laws?

Mystery solved. You found the missing extinct critters.

 

[Praxiteles]

Happy birthday!

Forgot the link; edited it to put it under the picture. It is an artist's rendering of the fossils found in the Burgess Shale.

Mystery solved. You found the missing extinct critters.

Thanks - although it's not until next week. This forum thinks that every day is a Monday.

 

[Oncedeceived]

IIRC, there were a couple phyla that appeared after the Cambrian and a number of phyla that went extinct. Plus, even if the phyla were present, most of the modern species weren't.

It really doesn't matter, you are missing my point completely. The Cambrian is the era when the seas swarmed with life. The fossil evidence captures that perfectly.