Evolution

[pgp_protector]

Not a mod so I can't move threads, but this really belongs here

Original Thread -> Link

Yes, but gravity can be proven. Drop a book it falls to the ground. Evolution has yet to be proven.

Cambrian Explosion Disproves Evolution

Introduction​

One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion” Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail. This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.” It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory. Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge. Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.​

Cambrian Explosion
“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.
Layers Above and Below​

Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide. ​

Darwin Knew​

Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time. Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory. They were wrong! Exactly the opposite happened. After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better. Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story. The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all. ​

No Correlation​

Remember, evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed out of the primordial soup. This ancient ancestor gradually evolved. Its evolutionary progress branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly complex and divergent organic forms. The paths continued to branch out resulting in the great diversity of life we have today. Now, if this is true, what would you expect to see in the fossil record? Of course you would expect to see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a gradual increase in diversity and complexity of life as you progress to more recent layers in the geologic time scale. But what do we really find in the fossil record? We find the exact opposite. Not something ambiguous like everything found in each layer. No, you find the exact opposite of what is predicted by evolution. From a correlation perspective you do not find a factor of 1, meaning perfect correlation, or a 0, meaning no correlation, you find a -1, meaning perfectly uncorrelated to the prediction. Now I don’t know about you, but I find this compelling proof that evolution did not happen. This begs the question, how much proof do evolutionary scientists need anyway?​

Belief In Spite of Evidence​

You must be saying to yourself at this point, “How could that be? How could they speak about this theory with such surety with such strong evidence to the contrary?” The answer is simple. They believe the theory in spite of the evidence. That is why many leading creation scientists keep referring to evolution as a philosophy of science or even a religion. This belief is so strong in academic circles that scientists are chided if they even question evolution publicly. Why are they ridiculed? They are ridiculed because the only alternative to evolution is creation. Some like to pretend there are a variety of options in explaining origins. This is simply not so. The options often presented are merely shades of the two primary options, and scientists know this. ​

Conclusion​

If evolution did not take place, if the natural forces at work today did not create the diversity of life we see on our little blue world, then something supernatural must be responsible. True science seeks to understand, no matter what the philosophical or metaphysical ramifications may be. That is why evolution is not science, but rather a philosophy, for it seeks to explain things within only one possible framework, whether or not this framework is true. The facts are that the scientists' own interpretation of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that every species appeared at once suddenly and then gradually died off with the passage of time. The significance of this great body of evidence against evolutionary theory in the fossil record cannot be stressed enough. It is utterly devastating to evolutionary theory completely by itself. But in the final analysis, it is but one of a plethora of scientific facts that refute the 19th century fable that is evolution. ​

In closing I would like to share with you some of my favorite quotes on the subject by leading evolutionary scientists, and even Darwin himself. By their own words they admit this very important piece of the evolutionary puzzle does not fit, and never will. Enjoy.

“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348),​

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” (Ibid., p. 344),​

“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Ibid., p. 350),​

“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Ibid., p. 351),​

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65), ​

“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),​

“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” (I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),​

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” (Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84),​

“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” (T. Neville George Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5).​

http://www.learnthebible.org/creation_science_cambrian_explosion_disproves_evolution.htm
​

 

[pgp_protector]

First Part.

Introduction

One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion” Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail. This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.” It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory. Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge. Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.

I notice there are no names given, but that's normal.

But you're correct in that YOU Believe , is you've got faith that's it's a myth.
But people Believe in lots of things, including elves, little people, ect, but believing doesn't make something true.

 

[pgp_protector]

Cambrian Explosion
“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

Coexistent Simultaneously ?
The "Cambrian Explosion" is over a time period of (If I Recall Correctly) about 53 Million Years, not really a short time as Some would like to present it as.

I like how they give 1 Date(The Oldest) but not the ending Date (around 490 Million Years Ago)

 

[pgp_protector]

Layers Above and Below

Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.

Yes it's true that most (not All) Soft body Tissues fossilize as the process of fossilization itself is verry rare.

98% Extinct is better than the Flood Story By the way so if you want to take the Flood as true, then a survival of 2% is more than enough.

 

[pgp_protector]

More Reading
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

 

[sbvera13]

Considering how defensive she got from post 1 (which wasn't even insulting) I doubt very much she'll come here to respond.

 

[USincognito]

Subbing to possibly reply later.

 

[TheDag]

Coexistent Simultaneously ?
The "Cambrian Explosion" is over a time period of (If I Recall Correctly) about 53 Million Years, not really a short time as Some would like to present it as.

I like how they give 1 Date(The Oldest) but not the ending Date (around 490 Million Years Ago)

Hi
I have a question. What on earth does the dates mentioned have to do with things? So they don't mention an end date. The way I see it is that what is written is either right or wrong regardless of if they mentioned an end date. So is there some relevance of the date that I'm not understanding?

Considering how defensive she got from post 1 (which wasn't even insulting) I doubt very much she'll come here to respond.

I actually read one of PGP's comments to be insulting and the other not to be. The disadvantage of not having full communication available. The majority of what we communicate is not in the words we actually say. So it is very much open to interpretation as to if PGP was being insulting or not. he has said he wasn't so we'll have to take his word for it.

 

[NailsII]

Hi
I have a question. What on earth does the dates mentioned have to do with things? So they don't mention an end date. The way I see it is that what is written is either right or wrong regardless of if they mentioned an end date. So is there some relevance of the date that I'm not understanding?

If I told you that an 'explosion' happened 530 mya, the obvious connotation is that it immediatly occured, in a small space of time.
By limiting the scale of the 'explosion' from an instant/day/month/year to a period of around 50million years (which is what the evidence suggests) put it all into perspective.

Those with an ounce of knowledge of evolutionary facts will know that in 50 million years whales and dolphins have evolved from land mammals.

That just shows what can happen in such a large period of time (compared to our lives), but appear as such a short period of time in the geological coloumn - which does of course represent around 4.5 billion years of rock formation/deformation etc.

It is in effect a slight of hand trick, a tactic most commonly used by journalists or lawyers.
It is certainly a method not commonly used by scientists, because in science you don't 'win' by presenting the best argument.
Your argument needs to be consistant with the evidence, and it must be corroborated independantly.

 

[Naraoia]

Not a mod so I can't move threads, but this really belongs here

Original Thread -> Link

Tl;dr was my first thought (but then I've been poring over CF for hours already).

However, this caught my eye:

Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms.

Actually, there are no undisputed "worms" in the Pre-Cambrian that I know of.

Also, there are things with hard parts in the latest Pre-Cambrian: for example, Cloudina, little stacked ice cream cones that would have housed a simple animal, and Namacalathus, a stalked... thingy with holes in it.

And this...

To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct?

The 98% doesn't mean that the number of species per period decreases. It just means that species come and go, and "today" is a short moment compared to earth history.

Let's assume the 1.5 million or so described species are all that exists on earth today (there are probably far more than that, but I don't want to go into dodgy estimates).

Then all species that ever existed - "ever" will mean in the past 543 million years, since the beginning of the Cambrian - would have numbered about 75 million.

Species don't last forever.

So, if we slot those 73.5 million extinct species into, say, 1 million year intervals, assuming that every species exists for exactly one interval and then goes extinct or gives rise to one or more new species (not exactly realistic, but it'll serve for illustration), then there would be 135 359 species per interval. If we use 10 million year bins, it goes up to ten times that, but that's still only ~the number alive today, and species definitely don't last tens of millions of years very often. So, no, "98% extinct" doesn't mean that species diversity has declined.

Actually, biodiversity has increased steadily since the Cambrian (The graph shows the number of marine genera against time before present. There's a reference in the description. Note that the present is towards the left).

 

[plindboe]

Hi
I have a question. What on earth does the dates mentioned have to do with things? So they don't mention an end date. The way I see it is that what is written is either right or wrong regardless of if they mentioned an end date. So is there some relevance of the date that I'm not understanding?

I'd guess you'd be fine then with me saying that the Second World War happened on the 1th of september 1939? That's some short war.

Peter

 

[plindboe]

I get the impression that the person who wrote the original piece somehow thinks that all phyla being found in Cambrian strata means that all species that ever existed are found in those strata. I wonder what (s)he would say when informed that the vertebrate fossils from those layers are all primitive fish, looking, to a laymen's eyes, nothing like any modern species.

Peter

 

[Naraoia]

And not so long ago the most vertebrate-like thing known from the entire Cambrian was Pikaia.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Well color me shocked, a creationist who is ignorant of the science behind evolution.

 

[TheDag]

If I told you that an 'explosion' happened 530 mya, the obvious connotation is that it immediatly occured, in a small space of time.
By limiting the scale of the 'explosion' from an instant/day/month/year to a period of around 50million years (which is what the evidence suggests) put it all into perspective.

I guess the problem starts when all people know explosions as are quick occourences rather than something that can happen over a long period of time. Never once in my years of study or discussions with my brother (or his fellow scientists) has anyone EVER suggested that explosions are not neccesarily a quick thing but could rather happen over millions of years. it is a pity nobody untill now wanted to explain this. So I wouldn't neccesarily agree that it is a sleight of hand trick as you suggest but rather if what you say is true then it is the inability of scientists and the like to explain this. Why is it that this is the first time I have heard this in over 20 years of discussion about evolution theory?

Perhaps it has been said in some conference and when the discussions have been recorded and edited into a form for publishing it gets left out. I've seen that happen with statements made by christian leaders where the public statement doesn't reflect what was actually said very well (sometimes not at all!) so I'm sure it could happen in science as well.

It is in effect a slight of hand trick, a tactic most commonly used by journalists or lawyers.
It is certainly a method not commonly used by scientists, because in science you don't 'win' by presenting the best argument.
Your argument needs to be consistant with the evidence, and it must be corroborated independantly.

Yes I understand how scientists work. You see they compete for funding so they don't actually care what the other person is doing or if it is right or wrong. They just want to discredit them so they can get that persons funding. This is different to what Richard Dawkins tries to suggest is the norm. He suggests that scientists are more than happy to be proven wrong. There may be some who are but mostly they will fight tooth and nail over it not calmly walk up to the other person and say thankyou.

 

[TheDag]

I'd guess you'd be fine then with me saying that the Second World War happened on the 1th of september 1939? That's some short war.

Peter

Comparing apples to oranges here. One your taught there was a start and end date while the other you are told about an explosion and never taught the concept that an explosion can take place over years let alone millions of years. Still if what has been said in the original post is true it still does not matter if there is an end date mentioned in my view. I appreciate the explanation Nails gave and found it helpful.

The funny thing was if it was the other way around with me making a statement like that then in my experience I would just be dismissed as a stupid christian who obviously doesn't believe in thinking. funny that!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, it's the third line on the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.

It would seem to be basic knowledge on the topic.

Note also that that line comes with two footnotes and the entire article has 91. Call me a pollyanna, but I'd say that that is ample.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, it's the third line on the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.

It would seem to be basic knowledge on the topic.

Note also that that line comes with two footnotes and the entire article has 91. Call me a pollyanna, but I'd say that that is ample.

 

[Hespera]

TheDag...Quote "Yes I understand how scientists work. You see they compete for funding so they don't actually care what the other person is doing or if it is right or wrong. They just want to discredit them so they can get that persons funding. This is different to what Richard Dawkins tries to suggest is the norm. He suggests that scientists are more than happy to be proven wrong. There may be some who are but mostly they will fight tooth and nail over it not calmly walk up to the other person and say thankyou.:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<quote

So apparently you have never met or even been in the same room with a scientist.

 

[plindboe]

Comparing apples to oranges here. One your taught there was a start and end date while the other you are told about an explosion and never taught the concept that an explosion can take place over years let alone millions of years. Still if what has been said in the original post is true it still does not matter if there is an end date mentioned in my view. I appreciate the explanation Nails gave and found it helpful.

I'm sure we can agree that "explosion" is a sure way to confuse laymen who don't know anything about the Cambrian Explosion. But for the rest of us, the ones who actually read books about it, there's no confusion. It's not a secret that it happened over tens of millions of years. Of course if you only read religiously biased sources, it's no wonder you end up confused.

The lesson is to be critical of your sources. Read science, if you want to know science.

The funny thing was if it was the other way around with me making a statement like that then in my experience I would just be dismissed as a stupid christian who obviously doesn't believe in thinking. funny that!

That's just paranoia talking. There are plenty of respected christians on these forums. The reason they are respected is because they know what they are talking about.

Peter