Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[mindlight]

Aside from the variety of life found in the ediacaran, there is also cloudina and sinotubulites that also predate the cambrian explosion. The two latter are potential transitionals and or have morphological similarities to cambrian life, further leading up the cambrian.

Cloudinidae - Wikipedia

http://www.paleo.pan.pl/people/Dzik/Publications/Verdun.pdf

Abstract:
All of the structurally identifiable latest Ediacaran and earliest Cambrian infaunal trace fossils represent shelters of animals feeding above the sediment surface. It is the case with the most complete and oldest radiometrically dated Precambrian–Cambrian transition strata along the Khorbusuonka River in northern Siberia, in the basal Cambrian succession at Meishucun in southern China, richest in small shelly fossils, as well as in the type succession of the Vendian in Podolia, Ukraine. The oldest traces of feeding within the mud are known from no earlier than the late Tommotian of Siberia, Mongolia, Sweden, and Poland. This suggests that the inven-tion of hydraulic mechanisms of sediment penetration was enforced by predation, not by trophic needs. Various ways to protect the body by secretion of a mineral skeleton or building tubes by collected mineral grains were developed by other animals at the same time. Predation may thus appear to be the triggering mechanism for the ‘Cambrian explosion’. Subsequent increase in the depth of bioturbation resulted in a profound change of taphonomic conditions, artificially
enhancing the effects of evolution

Not precursors to the explosion of new phyla that emerged in the Cambrian. The fossils are missing.

 

[Jimmy D]

Kinda interesting. For me, DNA supports ID more than evolution. Both sides can make a case for how it proves their position, because both are technically possible.

The amount of times we've heard this claim and yet no one on this forum has EVER demonstrated how DNA supports ID.

 

[Almost there]

The amount of times we've heard this claim and yet no one on this forum has EVER demonstrated how DNA supports ID.

It supports ID by its very existence and, yes, complexity. One of the things that fascinates me is that it even seems to function under the concept of JCL. Job Control Language - Wikipedia

i.e. complexity on top of complexity on top of complexity. And, truth be told, even the concept of parity bits.

 

[pitabread]

It supports ID by its very existence and, yes, complexity.

Existence and complexity aren't evidence unto themselves of intelligent design.

 

[mindlight]

Except, off course, the actual physical evidence known as phylogenetics.

Meyers reply to Matzkes review of the book says it all:

"It hardly solves the problem of missing fossil ancestors of Cambrian animals to use cladistics to posit a phylogenetic hypothesis that requires as a condition of its plausibility, the postulation of ghost lineages representing still more missing fossils"

 

[mindlight]

I have to ask though....

As a creationist and opposer to "macro evolution".... why are you talking about the cambrian explosion? Do you think the cambrian explosion actually happened?

Because I don't see how an event after which loads of "macro evolution" needs to take place to take those primitive "phyla" and evolve it into the millions upon millions of species that exist today (and the many more millions that went extinct since then), would fit into some creationist worldview.

The Cambrian explosion is only interesting to me as it requires evolutionists to draw on non scientific and non experimental results to verify their theory. It is a case where the ideological commitment to evolution requires rationalisations that assume evolution but which cannot demonstrate the required physical facts in the fossil record. It is an exposure of internal inconsistency rather than an affirmative Creationist argument.

 

[Jimmy D]

It supports ID by its very existence and, yes, complexity. One of the things that fascinates me is that it even seems to function under the concept of JCL. Job Control Language - Wikipedia

i.e. complexity on top of complexity on top of complexity. And, truth be told, even the concept of parity bits.

Yes, I heard the claim the first time you made it. Now where is the evidence?

 

[mindlight]

what "type to type"? What does that mean?

Give a specific example, perhaps.



Here's something that is known....

If a retrovirus inserts itself into germline cells, it becomes an inheritable ERV. This could be seen like some genetic "scar" that gets inherited by off spring.

Insertion spot is pretty random.

There are some 3000-ish known such virusses.
Potential insertion spots are theoretically some 3 billion places in humanoids.

In other words, for the same virus to insert itself in the same place twice, the theoretical probability is 1 in 3000*3 billion.

So it's pretty safe to say that if 2 individuals (let alone entire species) share an identical ERV, then those individuals had a common ancestor in which the actual infection took place.

We share many, many, many identical ERV's with chimps and other primates.

That's known. That's fact.

The obvious conclusion suggested by this data is...................

Basically mutations mainly lead to death. The famous fruitfly experiment where mutation was chemically induced on fruit flies won a Nobel but was really just a technique in fly extermination. They all died!!! Core functional genes quite simply mutate only at the expense of the organism , either reducing its functionality or killing it or rendering it sterile. We have examples of microevolution but not of creatures evolving into different kinds of creatures.

 

[Ophiolite]

The Cambrian explosion is only interesting to me as it requires evolutionists to draw on non scientific and non experimental results to verify their theory.

Can you provide two examples of non scientific and non experimental results that have been used to verify the theory?

[Note the theory has been verified by multiple lines of enquiry separate from the Cambrian explosion, so I am taking you to mean something like ". . . to make the theory applicable to the Cambrian explosion". Correct me, if applicable.]

 

[Ophiolite]

We have examples of microevolution but not of creatures evolving into different kinds of creatures.

Kind is not a scientific term. Please define it in scientific terms. Which taxonomic level constitutes a different kind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My experience has been that those really steeped in evolution research don't spend time arguing in places like this.

YMMV.

There are a few. But one does not need to be a researcher to judge the advocates for each side. Your side is lacking in active scientists. At best there are a few failed scientists that can't pass peer review for any of their failed ideas. Real scientists do tear those ideas up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peer review? You crack me up.

I've learned not to trust it on anything controversial. It does have its place, but only in a "second opinion" way.

In other words you are a science denier. Thanks for tipping your hand. No wonder you cannot provide anything of substance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is great. It's the junk science that bothers me.

There is also a problem many are facing where they can't get their work peer reviewed, though it deserves it. There is no small amount of blacklisting going on in the junk sciences, the two major ones being Evolution and AGW, now called climate change since the models are hopelessly wrong.

Oh my, a purveyor of junk science claims that junk science bothers him. It is a good thing all of the irony meters are in the basement today.

Find one example of a creationist article that is good enough to pass basic peer review. I sincerely doubt if you can.

And no, the models of climate change have been rather accurate to date. One has to rely on those that try to quote out of context and cherry pick to go against the science. But then you have already shown that you are a science denier.

 

[mindlight]

Can you provide two examples of non scientific and non experimental results that have been used to verify the theory?

[Note the theory has been verified by multiple lines of enquiry separate from the Cambrian explosion, so I am taking you to mean something like ". . . to make the theory applicable to the Cambrian explosion". Correct me, if applicable.]

Meyers book 2nd Edition has an interesting Epilogue where he reviews two scathing reviews of his first edition by Matzke and Marshall. Matzke basically used a phylogenetic method to posit the existence of the missing fossils as in my earlier quote that did not depend on finding any supporting physical evidence. Marshall basically suggested that the information Meyer thought necessary for the Cambrian Explosion was not necessary to explain it.

Meyer makes an involved critique of Marshalls argument concluding:

"Rather than treating our present experimentally based knowledge as the key to evaluating the plausibility of theories about the past, Marshall uses an evolutionary assumption ( transmutation) to justify disregarding experimental observations of what does, and does not occur in biological systems. The requirements of evolutionary doctrine thus trump our observations about how nature and living organisms actually behave. We know best from observation takes a backseat to prior beliefs about how life must have arisen."

 

[Job 33:6]

Not precursors to the explosion of new phyla that emerged in the Cambrian. The fossils are missing.

Fossils discovered demonstrate that cambrian life originated as soft bodied life forms.

No one should ever expect to find fossils of soft bodied organisms pre dating the first forms of complex life. Especially not in precambrian rock. They will forever be sparse, as soft bodied organisms do not readily fossilize. And, beyond that, beyond 600 or so million years ago, you get highly metamorphosed and volcanic rock in greater proportions. Which of course would digest most soft bodied fossils.

You may as well ask for fossils for the first abiogenic life form or the very first life form on earth.

Thankfully, after 600 million years ago, life developed skeletons and shells, and so 600 million years until present day, we have an increasingly apparent fossil succession.

 

[Ophiolite]

Matzke basically used a phylogenetic method to posit the existence of the missing fossils as in my earlier quote that did not depend on finding any supporting physical evidence.

What phylogenetic method did he use?

I don't no which earlier quote you are referencing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I disagree. I see creation in everything around me.

Yet those who actually study this stuff for a living, do not.
The very models, as I said, have certain expectations about what we should and shouldn't find in our observations.

Our observations match the expectations of evolution. They do not match the expectations of creation/intentional design. At all.

And one problem with evolution theory is that, for me, though it is very interesting and shows how life is flexible, I can't take it as anything more than an hypothesis until it gets past the hurdle of having zero explanation for Abiogenesis.

As so many people have undoubtebly told you already, evolution explains the origins of diversity, of species. NOT of life itself.

It does not matter one bit how life came about, in context of evolution.
Evolution starts when life already exists.

I remember reading articles decades ago about how RNA may have formed, and then DNA from it. but the challenge was that the same process that formed it would instantly destroy it, if it were even possible to form it in the first place.

It is not a secret that the process by which life could come about, are currently unknown.
Emphasis on the word unknown. Because when something is unknown, then it isn't known. This is important, because when claiming "creation", you are claiming knowledge.

It's called an argument from ignorance.

So, I have no problem with all this evolution stuff

You obviously do. I have no idea why you are saying that you don't. You clearly do.

However, when speaking of things that "evolved" before the dawn of man, I prefer nothing be stated as fact, but, rather, prefaced with "many scientists believe".

Instead of "many scientists believe", it rather is "as all the evidence shows".
Scientists don't "believe" anything, when it comes to science.

Paste those words in front of any claim about things not witnessed by any mane recording the event and I'm good with whatever you say*.

Congratulations. You have just thrown the bulk of science out the window. Including the sciences that make you GPS work, your computer boot and your meds cure.

 

[mindlight]

What phylogenetic method did he use?

I don't no which earlier quote you are referencing.

I thought you bought the book. The second edition epilogue at the back. Matzkes arguments was basically based on cladistic character trait comparison but lacking fossil evidence to support basically involved the postulation of ghost lineages in the fossil record.

 

[Almost there]

There are a few. But one does not need to be a researcher to judge the advocates for each side. Your side is lacking in active scientists. At best there are a few failed scientists that can't pass peer review for any of their failed ideas. Real scientists do tear those ideas up.

I believe there is some truth to that. I think there is a reason for that. This is a Christian form site. It's about Christianity, not science. Science is about how. Christianity is about why. The threads regarding "why" are the ones I can really sink my teeth into, but the science part is a fun distraction, kinda like video games or playing my bass.

 

[mindlight]

Kind is not a scientific term. Please define it in scientific terms. Which taxonomic level constitutes a different kind?

Sparrows are a kind but there are 43 different species of sparrow within that. Dogs are a kind that includes alsatians and poodles.