Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So the animals of the Cambrian explosion were real... what next?Yes, I believe the Cambrian explosion and its animals were real and I accept the timelines as estimated by science.
How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection? I don't see how anyone can test that that mechanism was responsible.Because science has this wonderful thing called evolution that nicely explains the whole thing.
I'm not a YEC. I accept the scientific evidence that suggests the universe and earth could be billions of years old and that life on earth could have begun billions of years ago.
What I don't accept is Darwinian folklore, which says the history of life on earth is the result contiguous process of biolgical evolution, the mechanisms of which are understood and described by the Modern Synthesis.
Dead according to you.How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection? I don't see how anyone can test that that mechanism was responsible.
And if not, said hypothesis is dead in the water.
It's called "unfalsifiability."I'd not accept the theory of evolution either if there were like even one contrary fact.
No, dead according to the scientific method.Dead according to you.
... only in the sense that fish existed first. I don't accept that they are linked by a contiguos process of biological evolution.But you accept that they are ancestral to
terrestrial Vertebrates?
It's a logical extrapolation from the mechanisms found in the evolution of extant species.How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection? I don't see how anyone can test that that mechanism was responsible.
And if not, said hypothesis is dead in the water.
the Cambrian explosion = one contrary fact
No, dead according to the scientific method.
Am I to assume that you can't provide an answer to my question?:
How do you test the hypothesis that that fish evolved and eventually gave rise to mankind via a process of mutations and natural selection?
If no test is possible, said hypothesis is dead in the water. That's how science works ... as opposed to your pseudo-scientific belief system.
... only in the sense that fish existed first. I don't accept that they are linked by a contiguos process of biological evolution.
Ecological niches.What explanation do you have for the sequence in the fossil record, then, if its not a step by step evolution?
The problem the Cambrian explosion presents for ToE is not just its relatively short time span (five million years, according to S.J.Gould and others).Oh? Explain how that disproves ToE, plz.
The problem the Cambrian explosion presents for ToE is not just its relatively short time span (five million years, according to S.J.Gould and others).
There are at least three other serious contradictions:
1. The Cambrian explosion reveals the sudden appearace of all animal phyla (except one), followed by diversification within each phylum. So we see disparity first, followed by diversity ... which is the opposite of what ToE predicts - diversity first, which eventually leads to disparity much later on.
2. There is virtually nothing in the way of
evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian biota. The Ediacaran (pre-Cambrian) biota suffered a mass-extinction well before the Cambrian explosion, and all that seems to have existed between the Edicaran and Cambrian were the "small shelly fauna". The evolutionary gap between the "ssf" and something like a trilobite is massive. Where are the transitionals? It seems there are none.
3. ToE predicts a single "tree" of common descent, with interconnecting "branches" between phyla ... but there is no fossil evidence of phylogenetic branches between the many phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
So instead of Darwinism's single tree of common descent, the Cambrian explosion looks more like an orchard of separate trees.
The problem the Cambrian explosion presents for ToE is not just its relatively short time span (five million years, according to S.J.Gould and others).
There are at least three other serious contradictions:
1. The Cambrian explosion reveals the sudden appearace of all animal phyla (except one), followed by diversification within each phylum. So we see disparity first, followed by diversity ... which is the opposite of what ToE predicts - diversity first, which eventually leads to disparity much later on.
2. There is virtually nothing in the way of
evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian biota. The Ediacaran (pre-Cambrian) biota suffered a mass-extinction well before the Cambrian explosion, and all that seems to have existed between the Edicaran and Cambrian were the "small shelly fauna". The evolutionary gap between the "ssf" and something like a trilobite is massive. Where are the transitionals? It seems there are none.
3. ToE predicts a single "tree" of common descent, with interconnecting "branches" between phyla ... but there is no fossil evidence of phylogenetic branches between the many phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
So instead of Darwinism's single tree of common descent, the Cambrian explosion looks more like an orchard of separate trees.
The problem the Cambrian explosion presents for ToE is not just its relatively short time span (five million years, according to S.J.Gould and others).
There are at least three other serious contradictions:
1. The Cambrian explosion reveals the sudden appearace of all animal phyla (except one), followed by diversification within each phylum. So we see disparity first, followed by diversity ... which is the opposite of what ToE predicts - diversity first, which eventually leads to disparity much later on.
2. There is virtually nothing in the way of
evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian biota. The Ediacaran (pre-Cambrian) biota suffered a mass-extinction well before the Cambrian explosion, and all that seems to have existed between the Edicaran and Cambrian were the "small shelly fauna". The evolutionary gap between the "ssf" and something like a trilobite is massive. Where are the transitionals? It seems there are none.
3. ToE predicts a single "tree" of common descent, with interconnecting "branches" between phyla ... but there is no fossil evidence of phylogenetic branches between the many phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
So instead of Darwinism's single tree of common descent, the Cambrian explosion looks more like an orchard of separate trees.
"[A] great variety and abundance of animal fossils appear in deposits dating from a geologically brief interval between about 530 to 520 Ma, early in the Cambrian period. During this time, nearly all the major living animal groups (phyla) that have skeletons first appeared as fossils (at least one appeared earlier). Surprisingly, a number of those localities have yielded fossils that preserve details of complex organs at the tissue level, such as eyes, guts, and appendages. In addition, several groups that were entirely soft-bodied and thus could be preserved only under unusual circumstances also first appear in those faunas. Because many of those fossils represent complex groups such as vertebrates (the subgroup of the phylum Chordata to which humans belong) and arthropods, it seems likely that all or nearly all the major phylum-level groups of living animals, including many small soft-bodied groups that we do not actually find as fossils, had appeared by the end of the early Cambrian. This geologically abrupt and spectacular record of early animal life is called the Cambrian explosion." (Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, "The Cambrian Explosion", p. 5)Except that the time frame for the Cambrian explosion is between 13 and 25 million years. That is A LONG time.
"[A] great variety and abundance of animal fossils appear in deposits dating from a geologically brief interval between about 530 to 520 Ma, early in the Cambrian period. During this time, nearly all the major living animal groups (phyla) that have skeletons first appeared as fossils (at least one appeared earlier). Surprisingly, a number of those localities have yielded fossils that preserve details of complex organs at the tissue level, such as eyes, guts, and appendages. In addition, several groups that were entirely soft-bodied and thus could be preserved only under unusual circumstances also first appear in those faunas. Because many of those fossils represent complex groups such as vertebrates (the subgroup of the phylum Chordata to which humans belong) and arthropods, it seems likely that all or nearly all the major phylum-level groups of living animals, including many small soft-bodied groups that we do not actually find as fossils, had appeared by the end of the early Cambrian. This geologically abrupt and spectacular record of early animal life is called the Cambrian explosion." (Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, "The Cambrian Explosion", p. 5)
“The most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution was the dramatic origin of major new structures and body plans documented by the Cambrian explosion. Until 530 million years ago, multicellular animals consisted primarily of simple, soft-bodied forms, most of which have been identified from the fossil record as cnidarians and sponges. Then, WITHIN LESS THAN 10 MILLION YEARS, almost all of the advanced phyla appeared, including echinoderms, chordates, annelids, brachiopods, molluscs and a host of arthropods. The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during THIS BRIEF TIME PERIOD REQUIRES EXPLANATIONS THAT GO BEYOND THOSE PROPOSED FOR THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES WITHIN THE MODERN BIOTA.” (Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 15: 27-32 (January, 2000), emphasis added.)
"An analysis by MIT geochronologist Samuel Bowring has shown that the main pulse of Cambrian morphological innovation occurred in a sedimentary sequence spanning NO MORE THAN 6 MILLION YEARS. Yet during this time representatives of AT LEAST SIXTEEN COMPLETELY NOVEL PHYLA AND ABOUT THIRTY CLASSES first appeared in the rock record. In a more recent paper using a slightly different dating scheme, Douglas Erwin and colleagues similarly show that THIRTEEN NEW PHYLA APPEAR IN A ROUGHLY appear in a roughly 6-MILLION-YEAR WINDOW."
(Stephen Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt", p. 73. emphasis added)
Why I don't believe in evolution...
I made a spreadsheet with a giant list of phyla and the timing of their appearances.
Only about 9 of 31 are observed, currently uncontested, as having been observed to first appear in the Cambrian
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?