Cambrian Explosion

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I am not quite sure why you put the pic in, was it for general information or did you think that I thought there might be a tiger in them there waters?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

I see now what you mean, but remember and this is a very important point; the early writers of the Genesis account did not have the luxury of a fossil record to make their "theory". They did not know that life began in the sea nor did they have fossil evidence to guide them to the understanding that man was the last in line of many other life forms. They didn't have any evidence to support that life came in stages.

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.

I don't find it incredulous at all. I find it as it is, evidence that supports the Genesis Creation account.

I am not providing evidence that evolution is false or "not true". I am providing evidence to support Creation.

First, what is your hypothesis?

If the Bible account is true concerning Genesis then it makes certain predictions. IF it is true we should see:
1. That the universe began rather than always being present.
2. That there was an order in which the sun, moon and earth were formed.
3. That life began in the sea.
3. That life developed in stages.
4. That mankind was the last stage.

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

True.

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

True

What observations would be expected if evolution were true that would in turn falsify your hypothesis?

I am not saying that evolution; evolution defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next would falsify my hypothesis at all. Evolution per se is an explaination of processes seen in nature. Evolution does not need to be falified to prove Creation nor the Creation account in Genesis. That being said, Creation can be falsified by evidence that would show that life was not began in the seas, or mankind came first. See what I mean?

esIn other words, what predictions does your hypothesis make that are different from the predictions that the ToE make?

It doesn't have to be different per se. In fact, it is not ToE against Creation at all. If the Creation account is true Science is the vehicle that finds the evidence which supports it. Science and research are what could falsify it as well. Evolution is not Science, it is a theory supported or falsified by Science.

 

[caravelair]

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.

the seas still swarm with life. what is your point? how on earth does this support creationism?

by the way, what about this hypothesis you were talking about? what is it? how could it be falsified? what natural phenomenon does it explain, and how?

 

[caravelair]

If the Bible account is true concerning Genesis then it makes certain predictions. IF it is true we should see:
1. That the universe began rather than always being present....

don't these all depend on your personal subjective interpretation of genesis? a YEC would tell you that the prediction would be that the universe began in the last 6,000 or 10,000 years. according to their prediction, genesis would be faslified (though they would not admit it), but according to your much more vague prediction, it is not. how can you objectively determine which interpretation is correct, and if you can't, how can it possibly be the basis for anything scientific?

2. That there was an order in which the sun, moon and earth were formed.

doesn't genesis suggest that the earth formed before the sun? any evidence to support this? current theories of star formation would have the planets forming simultaniously, if i remember correctly.

3. That life began in the sea.

just curious, where does the bible say this?

3. That life developed in stages.

where does the bible say this? a YEC would tell me that all life was formed as is, at the same time. how can you know their interpretation is wrong, and yours is correct?

4. That mankind was the last stage.

but mankind is not any more recent than a whole bunch of other contemporary species. in fact, we have seen new species form recently, and the process of evolution continues as it always did.

 

[Lilandra]

to clarify what others were saying about Cambrian era phyla being comprised of ancestral species of current species

To say that all the phyla of today were alive then can confuse someone not familiar with the classification system.

I am not quite sure why you put the pic in, was it for general information or did you think that I thought there might be a tiger in them there waters?

 

[Split Rock]

If the Bible account is true concerning Genesis then it makes certain predictions. IF it is true we should see:
1. That the universe began rather than always being present.

OK

2. That there was an order in which the sun, moon and earth were formed.

Yes, but it is the wrong order! The Sun formed with the earth, and most of the stars were formed way before our planet was.

3. That life began in the sea.

It does not say this. Genesis 1 says some sea creatures were created first, not that life "started" in the sea.

3. That life developed in stages.

No, it does not say this either. Genesis 1 states that different creatures were created in stages.

4. That mankind was the last stage.

But this is only stated in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, the animals are created after man, in a misguided attempt to find a "helper" and companion for Adam.

I think you are on the right track in not taking everything in Genesis literally, but why try to view it historically at all? My argument has always been that any story featuring a man made from dirt, a rib-woman, a talking snake, a tree of knowledge, and a flaming sword is an allegory or a parable, not history.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

ERV's are compelling. Considering that so little research has been done, so few DNA decoded that it is too soon for me to determine what to think about them. I think that an ancestoral virus may be something of interest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

the seas still swarm with life. what is your point? how on earth does this support creationism?

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,

by the way, what about this hypothesis you were talking about?

My hypothesis on Genesis. Here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21664967#post21664967

what is it? how could it be falsified? what natural phenomenon does it explain, and how?[/quote]

I have given examples in this thread.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I will forgive you then.

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.

I was giving my viewpoint only.

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

I take dogs very seriously.

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.

I never claimed that it was a scienfic one, I claimed that if true Science would support it.

Oh yeah? OH YEAH?

Oh so yeah!!!!

Well disprove this!!!!

Oh, how sweet!!!!!! We have one in the family that looks just like these.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK



Yes, but it is the wrong order! The Sun formed with the earth, and most of the stars were formed way before our planet was.

I didn't include stars. Give me one conclusive piece of evidence that the sun formed with the earth.

It does not say this. Genesis 1 says some sea creatures were created first, not that life "started" in the sea.

Is that contridictory to you?

No, it does not say this either. Genesis 1 states that different creatures were created in stages.

UH...that is why it is called Creationism.

But this is only stated in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, the animals are created after man, in a misguided attempt to find a "helper" and companion for Adam.

4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goeth toward the east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.' 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof. 20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

This is the spiritual account of the Creation in my opinion.

I think you are on the right track in not taking everything in Genesis literally, but why try to view it historically at all? My argument has always been that any story featuring a man made from dirt, a rib-woman, a talking snake, a tree of knowledge, and a flaming sword is an allegory or a parable, not history.

The Bible presents things that are literal, that are allegory, parable and it is full of historical data.

 

[OutCasteChild]

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

At least have the common decency of checking whether or not someone is actually online before accusing them of dodging your questions.

As for my original reply, your response seemed to indicate that you did not understand that all of the orginisms you listed are mebers of phyla that have their roots in the cambrian era.

 

[Split Rock]

At least have the common decency of checking whether or not someone is actually online before accusing them of dodging your questions.

I did not accuse you of anything. I was just wondering if you actually had anything useful to add to the discussion, other than the observation that whales are mammals.

As for my original reply, your response seemed to indicate that you did not understand that all of the orginisms you listed are mebers of phyla that have their roots in the cambrian era.

I understood this fine. You obviously do not understand that there are a lot of organisms at the order, class and family levels that are missing from the Cambrian strata. If the Cambrian represents Creation week, why are they all missing? Why are there no extant species represented in the Cambrian?

 

[Loudmouth]

As for my original reply, your response seemed to indicate that you did not understand that all of the orginisms you listed are mebers of phyla that have their roots in the cambrian era.

And all of the phyla in the Cambrian have their roots in the Kingdoms found in the Pre-Cambrian. The problem, as mentioned above, is that the act of Creation is spread over a 3.5 billion year span and continues to this day. The mechanism seems to be evolution. What I am trying to deduce is whether or not this clashes with the type of creationism that is being presented here.

 

[JohnR7]

1.
Not all Creationists are YEC.

All creationists are YEC, some just happen to be OEC also, and some do not believe in the "Old" world that was here before the new world began about 6000 years ago. In fact, even science accepts the beginning of civilization around 6000 years ago. They just feel that they was a transition period from 12,000 BC to 6,000 BC. Interesting the the Bible also talks about a six day or six thousand year transition period of time also.

 

[JohnR7]

If the Bible account is true concerning Genesis then it makes certain predictions. IF it is true we should see:
1. That the universe began rather than always being present.
2. That there was an order in which the sun, moon and earth were formed.
3. That life began in the sea.
3. That life developed in stages.
4. That mankind was the last stage.

1)Science also believes that the universe as we know it, did have a beginning and it will have a end.

2) Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the Bible is talking from a viewpoint of here on the face of the earth. How the sun & moon effect the earth depends on the atmosphere.

 

[caravelair]

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,

but we already knew the waters are full of life. and the author(s) of genesis, and all of their contemporaries would have known this too. this is hardly new information, how is this surprising? how does this support creationism, when we know it would be true even if creationism is false?

My hypothesis on Genesis. Here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21664967#post21664967

what you have presented seems way too vague and subjective to be considered a hypothesis. it seems your "hypothesis" is simply that your personal interpretation of genesis is true.

I have given examples in this thread.

i believe i have already discussed these examples here:

If the Bible account is true concerning Genesis then it makes certain predictions. IF it is true we should see:
1. That the universe began rather than always being present....

don't these all depend on your personal subjective interpretation of genesis? a YEC would tell you that the prediction would be that the universe began in the last 6,000 or 10,000 years. according to their prediction, genesis would be faslified (though they would not admit it), but according to your much more vague prediction, it is not. how can you objectively determine which interpretation is correct, and if you can't, how can it possibly be the basis for anything scientific?

2. That there was an order in which the sun, moon and earth were formed.

doesn't genesis suggest that the earth formed before the sun? any evidence to support this? current theories of star formation would have the planets forming simultaniously, if i remember correctly.

3. That life began in the sea.

just curious, where does the bible say this?

3. That life developed in stages.

where does the bible say this? a YEC would tell me that all life was formed as is, at the same time. how can you know their interpretation is wrong, and yours is correct?

4. That mankind was the last stage.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22162033&postcount=44

 

[ushishir]

If the Bible account is true concerning Genesis then it makes certain predictions. IF it is true we should see:
1. That the universe began rather than always being present.
2. That there was an order in which the sun, moon and earth were formed.
3. That life began in the sea.
3. That life developed in stages.
4. That mankind was the last stage.

You missed out a stage between 2 and 3 where genesis says:

"vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it"

were created, this would be a logical step if you were creating an entirely imaginary narrative of creation as most creatures ultimately depend on plants to live, pity it doesn't fit with what really happened.

clearly genesis asserts that modern type plants were the first living things to be created whereas in reality the first land plants evolved millions of years after the cambrian (during the silurian) and the first seed bearing plants millions of years after that, and plants/trees with fruit evolved even later.

Even if you call algae plants they evolved millions of years after the first bacteria (stage 3).

 

[Oncedeceived]

First I am sorry that I missed your earlier post. I apologize.

but we already knew the waters are full of life. and the author(s) of genesis, and all of their contemporaries would have known this too. this is hardly new information, how is this surprising? how does this support creationism, when we know it would be true even if creationism is false?

We are talking about the creation here, no one knew at the time of these writings that the creation of life forms began in the sea.
20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Now life moves to land. This is describing the Cenozoic period. The first mammals appear during this period.

This information was not available at the time.

what you have presented seems way too vague and subjective to be considered a hypothesis. it seems your "hypothesis" is simply that your personal interpretation of genesis is true.

Genesis is a simplist rundown of Creation. The hypothesis is that if the Bible is true we would see A, B and C. Which I have presented.

i believe i have already discussed these examples here:
don't these all depend on your personal subjective interpretation of genesis? a YEC would tell you that the prediction would be that the universe began in the last 6,000 or 10,000 years. according to their prediction, genesis would be faslified (though they would not admit it), but according to your much more vague prediction, it is not. how can you objectively determine which interpretation is correct, and if you can't, how can it possibly be the basis for anything scientific?

That is rather simple. Genesis says nothing about the universe being only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. How can that falsify Genesis when it isn't even in there? That is a straw man.

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.

doesn't genesis suggest that the earth formed before the sun? any evidence to support this? current theories of star formation would have the planets forming simultaniously, if i remember correctly.

No I don't have evidence to support it but there is equally no evidence to falsify it either.


just curious, where does the bible say this?

Provided above.

where does the bible say this?

I should have said in order rather than stages.

a YEC would tell me that all life was formed as is, at the same time. how can you know their interpretation is wrong, and yours is correct?

Again, the Genesis account itself.

 

[Joman]

The Cambrian explosion proves that evolutionary use of fossil strata is bogus.

There are less phyla today than are found in the Cambrian layer (which was deposited by the Deluge). Not evolutionary at all.

The micro-organism's found beneath the Cambrian layer are glaringly different and extremely rare compared to the phyla found in the Cambrian layer.

The HoE cannot explain any explosion of complexity nor diversity of life. Thus, the HoE is refuted by the hard facts (fossils).

Joman.

 

[KerrMetric]

The Cambrian explosion proves that evolutionary use of fossil strata is bogus.

There are less phyla today than are found in the Cambrian layer (which was deposited by the Deluge). Not evolutionary at all.

The micro-organism's found beneath the Cambrian layer are glaringly different and extremely rare compared to the phyla found in the Cambrian layer.

The HoE cannot explain any explosion of complexity nor diversity of life. Thus, the HoE is refuted by the hard facts (fossils).

Joman.

Not true - but thanks for playing.