Cambrian Explosion

[Baggins]

That is one of the most stricking giant leaps in the theory of evolution as natural history. Evolutionist speculate endlessly about symbiosis but never seem to get around to identifying the emergance of viable recursors to this rise of morphological innovation.

I know a fair bit about this subject as I wrote a degree thesis on it 20 years ago and have kept in touch with the research ever since. Do you have specific questions into the evolution of fossilisable skeletons, precambrian multicellular faunas, the artificiality of the Vendian/Cambrian boundary ( how it was based on the rise of fossilisable faunas etc )?

I would be happy to answer what I can, and I can suggest a number of fascinating books on this very subject ( the best being: Life on a young planet: the first 3 billion years of evolution on Earth - Andrew Knoll ) that go into it in some detail on this very subject, the best of them in a very readable way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you mean covering the whole of the earth or part of it?

And what scientific evidence do you have for water on the earth 4.3 billion years ago. The oldest rocks on earth, as far as I know, are the Acasta gneisses in Canada dated to 4.03 Ga ( billion years ago ), obviously gneisses having been heavily metamorphosed will contain no information about the presence of water on the earths surface. The oldest thing on earth was a single zircon crystal dated to 4.4 Ga, but again no info there. The next yougest rocks the Isua supracrustal rocks in Greenland are the ones with the evidence of standing water at 3,8 Ga. I'm intrigued as to where this evidence for standing water at 4.3 Ga comes from. Please tell me more when you can.

Most of the earth was covered with water. I am looking now for an article about it online now. But here is one that resources the water on the surface of earth early.

EARLY EARTH

NASA Scientists Confirm Liquid Water On Early Earth

illustration only Moffett Field CA (SPX) Jun 06, 2005
Research funded partly by NASA has confirmed the existence of liquid water on the Earth's surface more than 4 billion years ago. Scientists have found that the Earth had formed patterns of crust formation, erosion and sediment recycling as early as 4.35 billion years ago. Their findings came during a study of zircon crystals formed during the earliest period of Earth's history, the Hadean Eon (4.5 billion to 4.0 billion years ago). "NASA is interested in how early the Earth had abundant liquid water. If oceans form early in a planet's history, then so can life," said Carl Pilcher, senior scientist for astrobiology at NASA Headquarters, Washington. "Learning how early oceans formed on Earth will help us understand where else oceans and perhaps even life may have formed in this solar system and in planetary systems around other stars."
"This work provides direct evidence that the Earth was probably habitable within a hundred million years of its formation," said Bruce Runnegar, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., which provided some of the study's funding.
Published in the May 6, 2005, edition of Science, the research was conducted by T. Mark Harrison of the Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra and the University of California, Los Angeles; and E. Bruce Watson of the Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. Field research was completed in Western Australia's Jack Hills, which preserve a record of the Hadean Eon.
Watson and Harrison devised a new method of determining the temperatures at which the rocks formed. The team extracted and examined more than 50,000 zircons, crystals about the width of a human hair, which have been exposed through natural erosion in the Jack Hills. From the 50,000 zircons, only a couple of hundred were older than 4.2 billion years. Measuring the temperature at which the rocks melt gives an indication of the conditions in which they formed.
"Rocks formed as a result of the thermal energy from meteorite impacts would be bone dry and melt at greater than 900 degrees Celsius," said Harrison. "In contrast, our study has found that Hadean rocks melted at a consistent average temperature of 690 degrees Celsius. Water, which is a very powerful catalyst, must have been present in very large amounts for rocks to melt at such a relatively low temperature."
This discovery supports the proposal by Harrison's group four years earlier that a heavy oxygen isotope signature in the Hadean zircons is evidence for liquid water at or near the Earth's surface by 4.3 billion years ago.
The NAI, founded in 1997, is a partnership between NASA, 16 major U.S. teams and five international consortia. NAI's goal is to promote, conduct and lead integrated multidisciplinary astrobiology research and to train a new generation of astrobiology researchers.

Related Links
NAI
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

EARLY EARTH

New Thermometer Reveals Wet Conditions On Earliest Earth

Troy NY (SPX) May 06, 2005
Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Australian National University have found new evidence that environmental conditions on early Earth, within 200 million years of solar system formation, were characterized by liquid-water oceans and continental crust similar to those of the present day.

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF][SIZE=+2]Scientists confirm liquid water on early Earth[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-2]NASA NEWS RELEASE
Posted: June 3, 2005[/SIZE][/FONT]
Research funded partly by NASA has confirmed the existence of liquid water on the Earth's surface more than 4 billion years ago.
Scientists have found that the Earth had formed patterns of crust formation, erosion and sediment recycling as early as 4.35 billion years ago. Their findings came during a study of zircon crystals formed during the earliest period of Earth's history, the Hadean Eon (4.5 billion to 4.0 billion years ago).
"NASA is interested in how early the Earth had abundant liquid water. If oceans form early in a planet's history, then so can life," said Carl Pilcher, senior scientist for astrobiology at NASA Headquarters, Washington. "Learning how early oceans formed on Earth will help us understand where else oceans and perhaps even life may have formed in this solar system and in planetary systems around other stars."
"This work provides direct evidence that the Earth was probably habitable within a hundred million years of its formation," said Bruce Runnegar, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., which provided some of the study's funding.
Published in Science, the research was conducted by T. Mark Harrison of the Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra and the University of California, Los Angeles; and E. Bruce Watson of the Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. Field research was completed in Western Australia's Jack Hills, which preserve a record of the Hadean Eon.
Watson and Harrison devised a new method of determining the temperatures at which the rocks formed. The team extracted and examined more than 50,000 zircons, crystals about the width of a human hair, which have been exposed through natural erosion in the Jack Hills. From the 50,000 zircons, only a couple of hundred were older than 4.2 billion years. Measuring the temperature at which the rocks melt gives an indication of the conditions in which they formed.
"Rocks formed as a result of the thermal energy from meteorite impacts would be bone dry and melt at greater than 900 degrees Celsius," said Harrison. "In contrast, our study has found that Hadean rocks melted at a consistent average temperature of 690 degrees Celsius. Water, which is a very powerful catalyst, must have been present in very large amounts for rocks to melt at such a relatively low temperature."
This discovery supports the proposal by Harrison's group four years earlier that a heavy oxygen isotope signature in the Hadean zircons is evidence for liquid water at or near the Earth's surface by 4.3 billion years ago.
The NAI, founded in 1997, is a partnership between NASA, 16 major U.S. teams and five international consortia. NAI's goal is to promote, conduct and lead integrated multidisciplinary astrobiology research and to train a new generation of astrobiology researchers.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A significant point here: Years ago when putting forth my views, many claimed that the earth could not have been covered with water at all early on and claimed that it falisfied my theory. The same things were said about liquid being present in the formation of the solar system. Now Science is supporting those views.

 

[Baggins]

A significant point here: Years ago when putting forth my views, many claimed that the earth could not have been covered with water at all early on and claimed that it falisfied my theory. The same things were said about liquid being present in the formation of the solar system. Now Science is supporting those views.

You're still not saying what you mean by covered, if you mean that there were oceans on the Hadean earth I don't think that has been in dispute. As soon as the earth was cool enough to have liquid water on its surface it probably would have done, because where else was it going to go to/come from, it has always been here unless it was locked up in hydrated crystals, which would be difficult to sustain in argument. It has been argued that some water was added by comet impact, but it has been argued for years that this would never give us enough water.

Back to your statements.

When you say the earth was formed covered with water.

How long after the formation of the planet do you reckon water was present on its surface, and much of the surface do you think was covered by water. According to genesis it was all covered as the land was created later after light, I think this is an unsustainable argument.

What is your theory? I assume it is that genesis is literaly correct, and that is why you keep trying to say that there could be grasses in the pre-cambrian dispite the complete lack of evidence for this.

If this is the case you still have to explain how god moved across the surface of the waters before he created the sun ( let there be light ) or did he just have the sun turned off, because it surely formed either before the earth or at the same time as the earth if modern cosmology is correct.


Nice bit of data gathering by the way, interesting read, but I think in trying to prove genesis scientifically you are in for a long and pointless struggle, it has too many contradictions with well evidenced science.

 

[Baggins]

I think your best bet at trying reconcile the waters covered the earth bit in genesis is to argue that it means gaseous water rather than liquid water, then you would have a sustainable argument.

 

[Baggins]

Most of the earth was covered with water. I am looking now for an article about it online now. But here is one that resources the water on the surface of earth early.

Sorry Oncedeceived missed this bit, went straight to the science

I wouldn't have a problem with most of the early earth having water on it, after all 2/3 of the earth is covered with water to day and that is not historically high and the only water that has been added is by comet impact and while that may be significant it didn't add all our water.

The evidence I brought was of lavas erupting into oceans at 3.8Ba I don't have a problem with pushing that back a bit. Note that the article only says that water was present on the earths surface 4.3Ba, it doesn't claim whether it was in liquid or gas form ( because there is no evidence either way ), it would have been in gaseous form until a certain point of cooling was reached and then in liquid form.

 

[Oncedeceived]

it's false that we cannot possibly falsify genesis? remember, being able to potentially falsify a claim is not the same as showing evidence that is consistent with your claim. if your claim is unfalsifiable, then all evidence will be consistent with it.



looks like your evidence shows that it was covered with water hundreds of millions of years after it was formed, not when it was formed. either way, the point is whether you can falsify this claim. could you? how?



but you can't falsify this claim, can you? suppose the earliest life we found was land life, not sea life. we can't prove that sea life didn't exist before that, could we? no more than we could prove that grasses didn't exist first. see, so your claim that sea life was first is no more falsifiable than your claim that grasses came first. if you disagree, please tell me how we could falsify this claim. do not tell me how we could support it, that is not what i'm looking for. i want to know how we could potentially falsify it.



suppose we found man before we found birds. you couldn't prove that birds didn't exist before that, could we? you could just say it's possible that birds existed before then, and we just haven't found the evidence yet. that is exactly what you've been doing with this grasses example. so your prediction that man came last is no more falsifiable than your prediction that grasses came first. do you see where this is going? any prediction you make about order, it's impossible to falsify it because in order to do so, you would need to be able to show that species A did not exist at time X. if you can't do that, you can't falsify any of your claims about order in the fossil record.



yet you have not shown me any way that i could possibly falsify them! you say we can support them with evidence, that is NOT what ii'm asking for. i am asking for how we could potentially falsify them. please tell me.



first of all, are you sure you read what i wrote correctly? i was talking about how one could potentially falsify the type of prediction your theory makes, i was not saying that your theories predictions had been falsified.

secondly, ToE does NOT make any predictions that have been falsified. if you disagree, please tell me what you think those predictions are.



one prediction falsified does falsify the whole theory. find a single unicorn, or centaur or minotaur and you have completely falsified common descent. no going back.



it does if the other predictions in genesis are no more falsifiable than the one about grasses. if you can't falsify the grass one, then i don't see how you could falsify any of the other predictions either:

we can't prove that grasses didn't exist at time X, so we can't falsify the grass prediction.

suppose we found the prediction about humans to be wrong, because birds are found later. well we can't prove that birds didn't exist at time X either, so we can't falsify that prediction either! and we could do the exact same thing with any other prediction you make about the fossil record. do you understand this? do you understand that either all these fossil record predictions are falsifiable, or none of them are?



and yet you have not shown me a way that we could potentially falsify even one of your predictions. it seems you have no basis on which to disagree with me.



that's right, sort of like how grasses existed in the precambrian, and it just looks like they didn't.



but i didn't ask how you could support them, i asked how you could potentially falsify them. i want to know what evidence specifically would falsify these claims, if such evidence were found.



no you have not, you have shown me no way of falsifying it, so i'll ask again: the order of the fossil record that genesis predicts, how could we possibly falsify it? what evidence could we potentially find that would falsify the order?

So am I to assume then that you do not feel that the Creation narrative has never been or ever could be falsified?

 

[Oncedeceived]

one prediction falsified does falsify the whole theory. find a single unicorn, or centaur or minotaur and you have completely falsified common descent. no going back.

So you are telling me that the only way to falsifiy ToE is to find one or all of three mythical creatures? That is rather like being unfalsifible don't you think?

 

[Edx]

So you are telling me that the only way to falsifiy ToE is to find one or all of three mythical creatures? That is rather like being unfalsifible don't you think?

No, the point is OnceDecieved is that according to Creationism life shouldnt fit into an evolution tree, as God could easily create an organism that has properties that show that evolutionary lines have crossed, something that would be impossible for evolution proving it wrong. Aside from that why does all life fit evolutionary predictions? Creationists just say its coinsidence, that god could create however he likes. Those mythical creatures would falsify commen decent because they shoudlnt exist.

Ed

 

[caravelair]

So am I to assume then that you do not feel that the Creation narrative has never been or ever could be falsified?

i know you don't have a lot of time, but i really would appreciate a more detailed response to what i wrote, because we really aren't getting anywhere otherwise. i am trying to see what YOU think, asking me what i think doesn't help with that.

i think the order in genesis is either falsified already, or it must be unfalsifiable, and either way it is not science, and cannot be supported by science. my reasoning follows the lines explained in the post you responded to, which is why i need a more detailed response. please, tell me your thoughts about what i wrote.

 

[caravelair]

So you are telling me that the only way to falsifiy ToE is to find one or all of three mythical creatures? That is rather like being unfalsifible don't you think?

no, i never said that. i said that is ONE WAY of falsifying it. it is a specific example of a piece of evidence that we could find that would falsify common descent. i point this out because if the order in genesis is falsifiable, you should be able to point out an example, as specific as that, that would falsify genesis if it were found. please don't come back and say "if we found humans before birds" or something like that, because i have discussed this line of reasoning already in the post that this was quoted from.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, the point is OnceDecieved is that according to Creationism life shouldnt fit into an evolution tree, as God could easily create an organism that has properties that show that evolutionary lines have crossed, something that would be impossible for evolution proving it wrong.

Why? Who says that Creationism should not fit with an evolutionary tree? Genesis doesn't say anything about not fitting in an evolutionary tree.

Aside from that why does all life fit evolutionary predictions?

Well what do you mean by evolutionary predictions? There are many and varied predictions.

Creationists just say its coinsidence, that god could create however he likes. Those mythical creatures would falsify commen decent because they shoudlnt exist.

First of all I don't believe in coinsidence. Common decent is not outside the realm of Creationism. It would also not be a stretch to say that all life created by one Creator would have connections and similiarity to all life forms. So common decent fits with Creationism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

no, i never said that. i said that is ONE WAY of falsifying it. it is a specific example of a piece of evidence that we could find that would falsify common descent. i point this out because if the order in genesis is falsifiable, you should be able to point out an example, as specific as that, that would falsify genesis if it were found. please don't come back and say "if we found humans before birds" or something like that, because i have discussed this line of reasoning already in the post that this was quoted from.

For common descent to be presented as a falsifible theory based wholly in natural terms; it seems to me that one must have evidence of an event to begin the whole process. A Theory based on totally natural explanations needs to include how the process was possible to start with. If it can't be shown that a purely naturalistic event occurred to begin life from non-life does that then not falsifiy ToE?

I think that you are asking more of me and my view than you are of you and yours.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i know you don't have a lot of time, but i really would appreciate a more detailed response to what i wrote, because we really aren't getting anywhere otherwise. i am trying to see what YOU think, asking me what i think doesn't help with that.

A discussion is a two way conversation and it is important sometimes to clarify your points as well.

i think the order in genesis is either falsified already,

Please provide the conclusive evidence that has falsified it then.

or it must be unfalsifiable, and either way it is not science,

I never claimed it was Science.

and cannot be supported by science.

Are you claiming that only Science can be supported by Science?

my reasoning follows the lines explained in the post you responded to, which is why i need a more detailed response. please, tell me your thoughts about what i wrote.

I am thinking about what you have said. I am also waiting for your response to what I wrote.

 

[Edx]

Well what do you mean by evolutionary predictions? There are many and varied predictions.

The fact that we dont find unclassifiable chimeras.

First of all I don't believe in coinsidence. Common decent is not outside the realm of Creationism. It would also not be a stretch to say that all life created by one Creator would have connections and similiarity to all life forms. So common decent fits with Creationism.

Im lost. So whats the problem?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fact that we dont find unclassifiable chimeras.

What evidence do you have that we would find them outside of the model of evolution? What process would be used that we would find unclassifiable chimeras?

Im lost. So whats the problem?

With whom?

 

[Edx]

What evidence do you have that we would find them outside of the model of evolution? What process would be used that we would find unclassifiable chimeras?

Im just going to refer to you Aron-Ras thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2835971-one-thing-never-evolves-into-something-else.html

 

[caravelair]

For common descent to be presented as a falsifible theory based wholly in natural terms; it seems to me that one must have evidence of an event to begin the whole process.

why? how would that make it any more or less falsifiable? that doesn't make sense.

A Theory based on totally natural explanations needs to include how the process was possible to start with.

oh come on now, this is practically a kent hovind argument. i consider you above this. does atomic theory need to tell you about the origin of atoms? goes general relativity need to tell you about the origin of gravity? evolution only describes how populations of imperfectly reproducing organisms change over time. how those organisms got there in the first place is a different question, because they didn't evolve there.

If it can't be shown that a purely naturalistic event occurred to begin life from non-life does that then not falsifiy ToE?

no! do you really think it would? a purely natural origin of life is not a prediction of ToE, so how would it falsify it then? the only way to falsify a theory is to show that one of it's predictions is incorrect. since this is not a prediction of ToE, it can't falsify it.

how the first life got here is irrelevant to the ToE. it could have arisen naturally, through abiogenesis, it could have been seeded here by aliens, or it could have been zapped there by god himself. none of these options have any bearing on the validity of evolution.

I think that you are asking more of me and my view than you are of you and yours.

i disagree. i only ask of your theory that it be falsifiable (and unfalsified). something required of all theories that we expect to test via science.

 

[caravelair]

A discussion is a two way conversation and it is important sometimes to clarify your points as well.

that's fine, and that means answering my questions as well as asking your own.

Please provide the conclusive evidence that has falsified it then.

but i am not trying to convince you that it has been falsified, that is just my personal opinion. i know that the evidence we have will not convince you that it has been falsified.

because of that, i am operating under the premise that it has not been falsified. follow me so far?

my argument is the following:

A - if the prediction about grasses in the precambrian cannot be falsified by the evidence we have now, then it is unfalsifiable, because we could not have stronger evidence indicating this.

B - if the prediction about grasses cannot be falsified, then no other prediction about order in the fossil record could possibly be falsified either.

do you understand these 2 points?

i believe i explained my reasoning for this quite well in the post that you responded to with a single line. you are saying that you are trying to understand my position, well why not read my post? it's in there. here it is again:

you offered the following as a prediction of genesis:

We can show that mankind was the last in line of creation.

i responded:

suppose we found man before we found birds. you couldn't prove that birds didn't exist before that, could we? you could just say it's possible that birds existed before then, and we just haven't found the evidence yet. that is exactly what you've been doing with this grasses example. so your prediction that man came last is no more falsifiable than your prediction that grasses came first. do you see where this is going? any prediction you make about order, it's impossible to falsify it because in order to do so, you would need to be able to show that species A did not exist at time X. if you can't do that, you can't falsify any of your claims about order in the fossil record.

i later went on to reiterate:

we can't prove that grasses didn't exist at time X, so we can't falsify the grass prediction.

suppose we found the prediction about humans to be wrong, because birds are found later. well we can't prove that birds didn't exist at time X either, so we can't falsify that prediction either! and we could do the exact same thing with any other prediction you make about the fossil record. do you understand this? do you understand that either all these fossil record predictions are falsifiable, or none of them are?

do you understand my position now? that if the grasses prediction is not falsifiable, then none of your other ones are either?

I never claimed it was Science.

but you claimed that it could be supported by science, and you can't do that unless it is falsifiable.

Are you claiming that only Science can be supported by Science?

i am claiming that only falsifiable theories can be supported, because only this type of theory can be tested with the scientific method.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Im just going to refer to you Aron-Ras thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2835971-one-thing-never-evolves-into-something-else.html

Uhh,..... I think you must be more specific.