Cambrian Explosion

[caravelair]

1. Considering the fact that many organisms are being found earlier and earlier presents support that the evidence is not always as strong as it seems. Ants for instance, they have been found 40 million years sooner than previously thought. Bees too as I have pointed out have been found much much earlier than thought. With fossils it is hard to say just what evidence is conclusive. Any evidence that we hold at present may seem strong until some other evidence is found. So to say that the strongest evidence we can have is the strongest evidence there is becomes somewhat distorted.

i don't understand. do you think we could have stronger evidence that they did not exist back then, than we do now? yes or no? and question 2 was if your answer is yes, what evidence could we possibly find that would more strongly indicate that? do you have any idea? what evidence could more strongly indicate that they did not exist back then than the evidence we have today? i am looking for a specific example, if you can think of one.

2, 3, and 4. I have said that it is probably unfalsifible. Just as it is unfalsifible that there were no grasses present in the pre-cambrian, due to the fact that tomorrow someone could find evidence for them.

and thus, does this not render all your other predictions about order in the fossil record unfalsifiable as well? i don't see how any of the others could be more falsifiable than this one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What event of the Cambrian? more than anything else the Cambrian is a taphonomic artefact. It is the first time you see these things, because it is the first time that you get good conditions for fossilization.

Would you please present resources that provide evidence that Cambrian organisms were present in the pre-cambrian. On one hand you claim that there is no evidence for grasses in the precambrian but then turn around and claim that there were Cambrian organisms in the precambrian but that the conditions were too poor to fossilize them. Now obviously, I know that grasses vs. Cambrian organisms are farther apart and more likely but you have no more foundation for your premise than I for mine.

and I think we are getting a little bit lost on where the grasses fit in. I recall you saying that they some precambrian plants might be called grass because they look like that, but then one wouldn't call a dolphin a fish because it looks superficially like a fish.

One could. We only classify dolphins as mammals due to scientific criteria. It is only incorrect to say the dolphin is a fish if you are specifically stating scientific classification. In fact when citing characteristics of fish they must be 1. Aquatic 2. Vertebrates 3. ectothermic. So we see that dolphins have two out of three characteristics that pertain to fish.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i don't understand. do you think we could have stronger evidence that they did not exist back then, than we do now? yes or no?

We could not have stronger evidence if they did not exist back then, but we could have stronger evidence that they did.

and question 2 was if your answer is yes, what evidence could we possibly find that would more strongly indicate that? do you have any idea? what evidence could more strongly indicate that they did not exist back then than the evidence we have today? i am looking for a specific example, if you can think of one.

You can't prove a negative. Without positive evidence there is nothing that culd more strongly indicate they did not exist.

and thus, does this not render all your other predictions about order in the fossil record unfalsifiable as well? i don't see how any of the others could be more falsifiable than this one

Why would it falsify the other order?

 

[Gracchus]

We only classify dolphins as mammals due to scientific criteria. It is only incorrect to say the dolphin is a fish if you are specifically stating scientific classification. In fact when citing characteristics of fish they must be 1. Aquatic 2. Vertebrates 3. ectothermic. So we see that dolphins have two out of three characteristics that pertain to fish.

Fishes are in fact endothermic. They breath with gills, (though some do have lungs as well), have two-chambered hearts, lay non-amniotic eggs, and do not suckle their young. Dolphins are endothermic. They breath with lungs, and are placental mammals. By the way, are penquins fish too?

Of course we cannot expect to much specificity (That's a pun. Get it?) from folks who think insects and bats are birds. In truth, it is science, and careful observation that enable us to draw useful distinctions. To claim that dolphins are fish is ludicrous. When you are reduced to redefining words to protect your irrational beliefs you have already lost the argument.

 

[Jet Black]

Would you please present resources that provide evidence that Cambrian organisms were present in the pre-cambrian.

erm. that'S like asking for evidence that there were "children of the sixties" fighting in the first world war

On one hand you claim that there is no evidence for grasses in the precambrian but then turn around and claim that there were Cambrian organisms in the precambrian but that the conditions were too poor to fossilize them. Now obviously, I know that grasses vs. Cambrian organisms are farther apart and more likely but you have no more foundation for your premise than I for mine.

I only pointed out that the Cambrian explosion is a taphonomic artefact.

One could. We only classify dolphins as mammals due to scientific criteria. It is only incorrect to say the dolphin is a fish if you are specifically stating scientific classification. In fact when citing characteristics of fish they must be 1. Aquatic 2. Vertebrates 3. ectothermic. So we see that dolphins have two out of three characteristics that pertain to fish.

so now we get to the point, what is the point of trying to fit genesis in with the science? Your point there makes it immediately obvious to me that you could pretty much say that genesis is true regardless of the order that things appear in the fossil record. You have already done it with the cambrian fossils, arbitrarily picking phyla as the distinguishing line in the sand to insert one line of genesis, and that grass could be absolutely anything now, so long as it is alive and looks a bit like grass, allowing one to put it as early as you like. You could I suppose even do that with the sun, claiming that a sun is not a sun until it reaches a certain point on the main sequence, so even if it ignited well before life formed (which it did) it didn't reach your arbitrarily defined position until say, 7000BC.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fishes are in fact endothermic. They breath with gills, (though some do have lungs as well), have two-chambered hearts, lay non-amniotic eggs, and do not suckle their young. Dolphins are endothermic. They breath with lungs, and are placental mammals. By the way, are penquins fish too?

Really!!! It is totally amazing what one can learn on this forum. Thank you so much for setting me straight on this. I just can't imagine how I have remained so clueless for so long.

Of course we cannot expect to much specificity (That's a pun. Get it?)

Sorry, it is just to far above my head.

from folks who think insects and bats are birds.

You mean they aren't!!! I am just learning so much from you. I wish you were here to set me on the right path long ago.

In truth, it is science, and careful observation that enable us to draw useful distinctions.

Science. Maybe I should look into it....yes I might.

To claim that dolphins are fish is ludicrous. When you are reduced to redefining words to protect your irrational beliefs you have already lost the argument.

Oh do I have to give up my beliefs too. Well now, that might be a little harder.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry Jet, I was so swept away with the insightful post that I have responded to that I simply have run out of time to respond to anything else. Catch you next time.

 

[Jet Black]

Oncedecieved, you owe me a new sarcasm meter

 

[notto]

In fact when citing characteristics of fish they must be 1. Aquatic 2. Vertebrates 3. ectothermic. So we see that dolphins have two out of three characteristics that pertain to fish.

4. lay eggs
5. don't 't milk their young

Is it your claim that we could classify things that don't lay eggs and that milk their young as fish?

Why not simply remove the classifcation that they are Aquatic? By the standards you are using, that is as arbitrary as anything else.

 

[Baggins]

Would you please present resources that provide evidence that Cambrian organisms were present in the pre-cambrian. On one hand you claim that there is no evidence for grasses in the precambrian but then turn around and claim that there were Cambrian organisms in the precambrian but that the conditions were too poor to fossilize them. Now obviously, I know that grasses vs. Cambrian organisms are farther apart and more likely but you have no more foundation for your premise than I for mine.

You have to remember that the Pre-cambrian/Cambrian divide is an artificial division in the geological records by man. It is predicated on 2 major points the end of a global ice age and the rise of fossilisation of animal skeletons. It isn't therefore a suprise to find that there are few fossils prior to the Cambrian, because the division is there to mark the rise of common fossilisation, which was due to the evolution a hard shells, which was due ( in part ) to the rise in concentration of calcium carbonate in the water column at this time.

There are fossils in the Precambrian, many are micro fossils, but there are small shelly fossils found pre-cambrian, and the famous ediacaran soft bodied fauna, which has now been found in a number of pre-cambrian sites.

One of the most persuasive pieces of evidence that animals similar to Cambrian faunas lived Pre-cambrian but without fossilisable shells is the presence of trace fossils ( tracks and tubes formed by the movement of animals ) in the Pre-Cambrian, these same fossils can be found in the Cambrian sometimes in conjunction with the animals that formed them.

I have posted resoursces in the form of a cool book about the first 3 billion years of life on earth ( i.e. the Precambrian evolution on earth ) before on this site, it may in fact be on this thread.

I doubt that you ( oncedecieved ) will be interested, but there may be others out there with an interest in Pre-Cambrian evolution, I find it fascinating.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedecieved, you owe me a new sarcasm meter

I take it that it wasn't over your head? hehehee.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I doubt that you ( oncedecieved ) will be interested, but there may be others out there with an interest in Pre-Cambrian evolution, I find it fascinating.

I want to address some of your points but I am hungry and it is my lunch hour but I had to say this:

Why would you presume that I would be uninterested? Not only that, why would you assume that I am unaware of pre-cambrian evolution?

 

[Baggins]

I want to address some of your points but I am hungry and it is my lunch hour but I had to say this:

Why would you presume that I would be uninterested? Not only that, why would you assume that I am unaware of pre-cambrian evolution?

Let's just say you're not as interested in it as I am

I would imagine few are

It is one of my areas of special interest

 

[Oncedeceived]

erm. that'S like asking for evidence that there were "children of the sixties" fighting in the first world war

LOL

I only pointed out that the Cambrian explosion is a taphonomic artefact.

Are not all deposits?

so now we get to the point, what is the point of trying to fit genesis in with the science?

You have gotten me wrong here; I am not trying to fit Genesis in with Science. I am showing that Genesis does not necessarily conflict with know Scientific data. Genesis is not meant to be scientifically correct; why should it be? It is a general description of the creation of the universe. It is not meant to be term specific nor scientifically correct. I feel that there are scenerios that make sense in regard to the generality of creation.

Your point there makes it immediately obvious to me that you could pretty much say that genesis is true regardless of the order that things appear in the fossil record.

That could be said of many aspects of fossil records. When organisms can be as much as ten's of millions of years earlier than once thought; it puts a new twist on the evolutionary model. If I said that evolution is untrue due to the fact that it couldn't get off the ground (no pun intended) to begin life at all; what evidence would you provide to support your claim? If you didn't have the evidence would that then disprove evolution all together?

You have already done it with the cambrian fossils, arbitrarily picking phyla as the distinguishing line in the sand to insert one line of genesis,

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.
Phyla is not necessary as a distinction per se. I feel this fits with the verse because it claims that the waters swarmed with living creatures..great sea monsters. The most important point in the verse is that it says "every living creature that creepeth", which says to me that this is a time when all "kinds" were living in the waters. This time frame makes the most sense when looking at the Cambrian.

and that grass could be absolutely anything now, so long as it is alive and looks a bit like grass, allowing one to put it as early as you like.

Wait a minute. I am not actually making that as a claim. I said that it is possible. I don't personally feel that I am allowing anything really. In my personal opinion, the other scenerio is the one I really feel fits my theory as I have said before.

You could I suppose even do that with the sun, claiming that a sun is not a sun until it reaches a certain point on the main sequence, so even if it ignited well before life formed (which it did) it didn't reach your arbitrarily defined position until say, 7000BC.

Got to go. Sorry.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let's just say you're not as interested in it as I am

I would imagine few are

I'll let it go then but again, it is hard to determine how interested someone is in something wouldn't you say?

 

[caravelair]

We could not have stronger evidence if they did not exist back then, but we could have stronger evidence that they did.

if they did exist, it would be possible to have stronger evidence that they did not? i am asking about evidence that would show that they did not exist back then. if your prediction is that they existed back then, the only way to falsify that prediction is to show that they did not. if you can't do that, then it's not a falsifiable prediction. do you understand what i mean?

You can't prove a negative.

you can't prove anything in science. but you can have evidence for things. you can't prove that something does not exist, but you can have evidence that suggests that is the case.

Without positive evidence there is nothing that culd more strongly indicate they did not exist.

how would positive evidence indicate that they did not exist?

if you are implying that we can't possibly determine that they did not exist, then you must admit that it makes this prediction unfalsifiable, no?

Why would it falsify the other order?

that's not what i said. i said it would render the other predictions unfalsifiable. unfalsifiable is not the same as falsified. do you understand the difference between the 2?

from another post...

You have gotten me wrong here; I am not trying to fit Genesis in with Science. I am showing that Genesis does not necessarily conflict with know Scientific data.

but if genesis is unfalsifiable, then this is not at all interesting or surprising that it does not conflict with science. unfalsifiable things cannot possibly conflict with any scientific data that we could possibly ever have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

if they did exist, it would be possible to have stronger evidence that they did not? i am asking about evidence that would show that they did not exist back then.

What evidence could there be that would show they did not exist back then?

if your prediction is that they existed back then, the only way to falsify that prediction is to show that they did not. if you can't do that, then it's not a falsifiable prediction. do you understand what i mean?

I am not predicting that they existed, I simply said that it is possible that they existed then.

I understand what you mean and I have said that it is at this time unfalsifiable. But you must admit that it does not mean that it could not be possible just the same.

you can't prove anything in science. but you can have evidence for things. you can't prove that something does not exist, but you can have evidence that suggests that is the case.

True, my mistake using the term prove. Regardless, you can not provide evidence for a negative either. As Science has shown repeatedly, one piece of evidence can change the whole spectrum of knowledge. It can change the whole outlook of something as standard as the formation of the moon.

how would positive evidence indicate that they did not exist?

It wouldn't. You read that incorrectly I think.

if you are implying that we can't possibly determine that they did not exist, then you must admit that it makes this prediction unfalsifiable, no?

Which I have already said previously.

that's not what i said. i said it would render the other predictions unfalsifiable. unfalsifiable is not the same as falsified. do you understand the difference between the 2?

Okay, why would it make the other orders unfalsifiable?


from another post...

but if genesis is unfalsifiable, then this is not at all interesting or surprising that it does not conflict with science. unfalsifiable things cannot possibly conflict with any scientific data that we could possibly ever have.

I didn't say that Genesis is not unfalsifiable. I said that precambrian plant life was at this time. Should they be found then it would support Genesis. That is what I am saying. Do you understand?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You could I suppose even do that with the sun, claiming that a sun is not a sun until it reaches a certain point on the main sequence, so even if it ignited well before life formed (which it did) it didn't reach your arbitrarily defined position until say, 7000BC.

In fact, I have heard that argument by another Creationist.

I don't feel that is true to Scripture though. Genesis clearly claims that the sun was not created before the earth.

 

[rambot]

I'm not sure why you are arguing that ALL traits are equal in the classification structure:
When classifying things, certain attributes are MORE IMPORTANT than others.

When classifying a tree, we wouldn't put a decidious tree with a coniferious tree JUST BECAUSE they had axial branches. No. They have much LARGER differences:

Now correct me if i'm wrong here but i'm pretty sure that classification is done SOLELY with physiological features AND habitat plays NO role in defining a species (that is "Fishes are aquatic" is true but it is NOT a defining feature of the PHYSIOLOGY).
And dolphins are as like fish, as you are like an ostrich. You should NOT be saying dolphins are fish...

 

[JohnR7]

1. YECists don't have a theory.

Creationists have the truth, so why would they need a theory? Science is the one that has to keep coming up with different theorys to explain the various things we keep finding in the world of nature.