Cambrian Explosion

[Joman]

Not true - but thanks for playing.

?

Joman.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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).

I didn't miss it. I had it in the link I provided from my thread.

11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}

There are two points to consider in interpreting this verse. The first is that there is no evidence to support this verse. The second has two possible meanings which could be valid. The first of the two is that there is no evidence of this due to plate tectonics, it is a well known fact that the earliest surface of the earth is probably lost for all time due to movement. The second is that all plants and trees have their beginings from green algae which is the first life form on earth.

I concede that "evidence" to support my viewpoint on this is interpretive at best and so I will consider this verse somewhat of a gap in the conclusions I hold.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Why?

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

It's called extinction. I would assume you have heard of this before.

What has happened is that each phyla has diversified, just as we would expect. Once you are part of a phyla you can never be part of another phyla. Evolution is descent with modification, so we would not expect new phyla.

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).

Why can't the theory of evolution explain this?

 

[KerrMetric]

The second is that all plants and trees have their beginings from green algae which is the first life form on earth.

This is not true. Green algae appeared far later than the earliest life forms. The cyanobacteria (blue green algae) are prokaryotes and are not direct precursors of the green algae which gave rise to land plants.

 

[LittleNipper]

Everything is fully formed and fully functioning . Just like they had been around for millions of years (if one were to consider the thinking of evolutionists). There is seemingly no start ----- everything just was. This is something evolutionists fail to explain.

 

[KerrMetric]

Everything is fully formed and fully functioning . Just like they had been around for millions of years (if one were to consider the thinking of evolutionists). There is seemingly no start ----- everything just was. This is something evolutionists fail to explain.

What would not fully formed and functioning look like? They certainly are more primitive. Just what do you want to appear in the fossil record - a piece of a skeleton/shell/whatever with a part number on it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Everything is fully formed and fully functioning . Just like they had been around for millions of years (if one were to consider the thinking of evolutionists). There is seemingly no start ----- everything just was. This is something evolutionists fail to explain.

A monotreme is not a fully formed placental mammal. It still lays eggs like a reptile, still has a cloaca like a reptile, and it only has partially developed mammary organs.

Of course, no species is fully formed since mutations will always occur and modify physiology.

 

[Tomk80]

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.

Given that, according to common ancestry patterns, evolution is a process of diversification, the 'phyla' in the cambrian were species then. Only some species diversified, the rest died out. Those that diversified became the phyla that are existant right now. Those that died out, are the other phyla. Suffice it to say, that the fact that there are less phyla today as in the cambrian, is completely in line with patterns expected according to common ancestry.

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

Show me.

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

Joman.

Yes it can. There are more in the fossil record than just the cambrian explosion. Everytime new niches come available, they will be very quickly filled with new species. An explosion of diversity, and sometimes complexity is the logical result.

 

[LittleNipper]

A monotreme is not a fully formed placental mammal. It still lays eggs like a reptile, still has a cloaca like a reptile, and it only has partially developed mammary organs.

Of course, no species is fully formed since mutations will always occur and modify physiology.

Everything seemed to work just fine. Is blindness a mutation? Is being born deaf a mutation? Is that individual any less a member of the species? Will the ofspring always have the same mutations as the parent? Seems that one could go on like that for thousands of years and not accomplish anything genetically ------- seems that is exacly what humans have done ----- as well as other species. Nothing has really changed and yet everyone is unique.

 

[Split Rock]

Everything is fully formed and fully functioning . Just like they had been around for millions of years (if one were to consider the thinking of evolutionists).

Why shouldn't everything be "fully formed and functioning?" Is a mud-skipper or a platypus "fully formed and functioning?" Were the mammal-like reptiles (therapsids) of the Permian with both reptilian and mammalian jaw joints "fully formed and functioning?"

There is seemingly no start ----- everything just was. This is something evolutionists fail to explain.

Not so. If you look at the Precambrian strata, you find only single-celled organims, until the later PreCambrian, where the first multi-cellular organisms are found. No dogs, no cats, no trees, no fish, no pigeons. This is something creationists cannot explain.

 

[Loudmouth]

Everything seemed to work just fine.

Exactly, which is why your argument is so lame. If everthing didn't work then no offspring would be produced.

Is blindness a mutation?

Ask a bacteria.

Is being born deaf a mutation?

Ask a sea squirt.

Is that individual any less a member of the species?

There are species that are both blind and deaf.

Will the ofspring always have the same mutations as the parent?

If offspring are produced, yes. That's the whole point. How many offspring will a blind wolf have? Probably none. How many offspring will a three legged lion have? Probably none. How many offspring will a very speedy wolf have? Many. How many offspring will a strong lion have? Many. Natural selection gets rid of mutations that decrease fitness while multiplying beneficial mutations.

Seems that one could go on like that for thousands of years and not accomplish anything genetically ------- seems that is exacly what humans have done ----- as well as other species. Nothing has really changed and yet everyone is unique.

Looking at the fossil record, the exact opposite has happened.

 

[Joman]

What has happened is that each phyla has diversified, just as we would expect. Once you are part of a phyla you can never be part of another phyla. Evolution is descent with modification, so we would not expect new phyla.

The point is there are less phyla today than already evidenced in the Cambrian layer. And, if evolution produced the Cambrian phyla then evolution lacks any excuse for not producing more, especially in the face of extinction.
But, no fossil record prior to nor after the Cambrian layer, evidences any evolutionary creation of the Cambrian phyla nor any new phyla.

Why can't the theory of evolution explain this?

Why hasn't it?
It cannot explain it because eons of time are required to provide the ToE the illusion of probabiltiy and to afford an excuse for the adherents of the ToE concerning the lack of valid scientific falsification testing of macro-evolution. You know the propaganda line..."we'd show you but, it occurs so slowly..."

Joman.

 

[Joman]

What would not fully formed and functioning look like? They certainly are more primitive. Just what do you want to appear in the fossil record - a piece of a skeleton/shell/whatever with a part number on it?

It's a lot simpler to admit you haven't any fossil record of any evolution (micro/macro) that can explain the diversity and complexity of life displayed in the Cambrian layer.

Joman.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is there are less phyla today than already evidenced in the Cambrian layer.

Correct. It's called extinction.

And, if evolution produced the Cambrian phyla then evolution lacks any excuse for not producing more, especially in the face of extinction.

In order to create more phyla a species would be required to travel back in time. Phyla are human constructs. What scientists did was group extinct species together into different categories. Once those phyla were constructed, all of the descendants of those species are also part of that phyla. All vertebrates will always be vertebrates, no matter how much they change. Us humans will always be mammals, no matter how much we change.

But, no fossil record prior to nor after the Cambrian layer, evidences any evolutionary creation of the Cambrian phyla nor any new phyla.

But there is evidence of new families, orders, classes, etc. Like I said, evolution is descent with modification. If you are from the vertebrate phyla you can never be anything else but a vertebrate no matter how much you change. However, you can be a new kind of vertebrate.

Why hasn't it?

Not enough evidence as of yet. Scientists don't resort to supernatural magic for explanations like you do. They search for evidence.

It cannot explain it because eons of time are required to provide the ToE the illusion of probabiltiy and to afford an excuse for the adherents of the ToE concerning the lack of valid scientific falsification testing of macro-evolution. You know the propaganda line..."we'd show you but, it occurs so slowly..."

Joman.

How is "GodDidIt" a better explanation?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a lot simpler to admit you haven't any fossil record of any evolution (micro/macro) that can explain the diversity and complexity of life displayed in the Cambrian layer.

Joman.

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

 

[Joman]

Given that, according to common ancestry patterns, evolution is a process of diversification, the 'phyla' in the cambrian were species then. Only some species diversified, the rest died out. Those that diversified became the phyla that are existant right now. Those that died out, are the other phyla. Suffice it to say, that the fact that there are less phyla today as in the cambrian, is completely in line with patterns expected according to common ancestry.

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?

Show me.

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 it

.There are more in the fossil record than just the cambrian explosion.

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

An explosion of diversity, and sometimes complexity is the logical result.

And, the logic is?

Joman.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is not true. Green algae appeared far later than the earliest life forms. The cyanobacteria (blue green algae) are prokaryotes and are not direct precursors of the green algae which gave rise to land plants.

Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic.

Though cyanobacteria do not have a great diversity of form, and though they are microscopic, they are rich in chemical diversity. Cyanobacteria get their name from the bluish pigment phycocyanin, which they use to capture light for photosynthesis. They also contain chlorophyll a, the same photosynthetic pigment that plants use. In fact the chloroplast in plants is a symbiotic cyanobacterium, taken up by a green algal ancestor of the plants sometime in the Precambrian. However, not all "blue-green" bacteria are blue; some common forms are red or pink from the pigment phycoerythrin. These bacteria are often found growing on greenhouse glass, or around sinks and drains. The Red Sea gets its name from occasional blooms of a reddish species of Oscillatoria, and African flamingos get their pink color from eating Spirulina.
Whatever their color, cyanobacteria are photosynthetic, and so can manufacture their own food. This has caused them to be dubbed "blue-green algae", though they have no relationship to any of the various eukayotic algae. The term "algae" merely refers to any aquatic organisms capable of photosynthesis, and so applies to several groups.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanolh.html

 

[Lilandra]

Think of it this way. The cambrian was the period where multicellular life formed. Simple animals like trilobites and brachiopods.

Just focusing on the most diverse group trilobites had up to 5,000 genera. Putting that in perspective of today's animals. Of the 60 primate genera, ring tailed lemurs(for example) have 4 genera that are composed of 11 species.

But when you look at the trilobites that made up those genera they are just modifications of the trilobite body plans like these:

So most of what was lost during the Permian extinction were modifications of ancient phyla.

Today, animals are more diverse in one way that I can think of: they occupy more niches then in the Cambrian. They walk, run, fly, swim and squirm in most parts of the world.

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.

The point is there are less phyla today than already evidenced in the Cambrian layer. And, if evolution produced the Cambrian phyla then evolution lacks any excuse for not producing more, especially in the face of extinction.
But, no fossil record prior to nor after the Cambrian layer, evidences any evolutionary creation of the Cambrian phyla nor any new phyla.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let's see, the origin of the earth is estimated to be 4.6 bya. then a period of 10 million years between 3.8 to 3.7 bya produced the first living organism, no explanation just *poof*. These organisms carry on for about 2 billion years and then for some unexplained reason, eukaryotes appear (1,75bya). Then between 590-505 mya every major phylum appears rather suddenly. Somehow algae, jellyfish and worms transpose into trilobites, nautiloids braciopods...etc. Later the tetrapods make their arrival about 360 mya. Between 300 and 350 mya ago replites, birds and mammals appear.

In natural history the geological strata is showing the sudden appearance of fully formed living systems with virtually no precursors. Someone get skeptical about this whole scenerio and they are they are simply told they don't understand. This scenerio is loaded with presumption and very few, if any, precursors for major morphological innovation.

 

[Joman]

In order to create more phyla a species would be required to travel back in time.

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.
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?

All vertebrates will always be vertebrates, no matter how much they change. Us humans will always be mammals, no matter how much we change.

Not according to the ToE. Maybe it's time to devolve the ToE down to mere microevolution and let's all agree.

But there is evidence of new families, orders, classes, etc. Like I said, evolution is descent with modification. If you are from the vertebrate phyla you can never be anything else but a vertebrate no matter how much you change. However, you can be a new kind of vertebrate.

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

Not enough evidence as of yet. Scientists don't resort to supernatural magic for explanations like you do. They search for evidence.

I believe in the God of the AV Bible who is intelligent, rational and the creator of all the order found in nature. Since nature displays nothing of a magical nature then the God who created nature isn't magical.
However, the ToE is magical in it's predictions about where things came from. 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.

How is "GodDidIt" a better explanation?

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.
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. 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.

To believe that "God did it" is far more rational than to believe that "No-one did it".
It is an irrational use of science to attempt to apply valid scienctific means untestable.
You evolutionists can't scintifically prove the existence of a "common ancestor" any better than I can prove "God is my ancestor".

Joman.