Pre-Cambrian fossils

[lucaspa]

The animals of the Cambrian did not "spring" into existence suddenly.

Nature 388, 868 - 871 (1997) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The Late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism, MIKHAIL A. FEDONKIN AND BENJAMIN M. WAGGONER
"The fossil Kimberella quadrata was originally described from late Precambrian rocks of southern Australia. Reconstructed as a jellyfish, it was later assigned to the cubozoans ('box jellies'), and has been cited as a clear instance of an extant animal lineage present before the Cambrian. Until recently, Kimberella was known only from Australia, with the exception of some questionable north Indian specimens. We now have over thirty-five specimens of this fossil from the Winter Coast of the White Sea in northern Russia. Our study of the new material does not support a cnidarian affinity. We reconstruct Kimberella as a bilaterally symmetrical, benthic animal with a non-mineralized, univalved shell, resembling a mollusc in many respects. This is important evidence for the existence of large triploblastic metazoans in the Precambrian and indicates that the origin of the higher groups of protostomes lies well back in the Precambrian."

"Benthic" means deep sea dwelling. Notice the bolded non-mineralized shell. So, molluscs did not suddenly appear in the Cambrian, but had an unmineralized ancestor in pre-Cambrian rock.

Saint Philip is using the "sorting by the Flood hypothesis". He has already said that the Burgess Shale and other Cambrian strata are the first Flood sediments. Well, these must be Pre-Flood then. So where are all the invertebrates seen in the Cambrian? They all must have been alive at this time.

The only explanation is that they had not evolved yet and this is their ancestor.

 

[Ark Guy]

THE TRUTH...

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

In answering the question we must ask the question:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?

In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.

 

[Vance]

Lucaspa,

Can you explain PE again. It might be useful right about here.

 

[Ark Guy]

yes, please explain to us how the entire animal kingdom PE'd at once.

 

[Ark Guy]

The silence is deafening

 

[troodon]

The silence is deafening

Heck, I'll answer

But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

So you think that scientists are repressing evidence falsifying evolution?

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?

This misconception is what this thread is meant to address. The phyla only appear to come out of no where. The Cambrian "explosion" lasted tens of millions of years! That is an enormous amount of time for lots of change to occur in when the conditions are right (like after a huge die off). There is evidence of cnidarians, annelids, arthropods, and echinoderms all being present before the Cambrian (as well as mullosks as detailed in the OP). The reason I only say there is "evidence" is because these organisms are so primitive, and fossil sites are so rare, the taxonomic lines blurr to a great amount. Read here for a description about phenomena regarding higher taxa.

In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

What? We see a whole lot of taxa creation in the fossil record. That's why there aren't crabs in the Cambrian. Lobsters in the Precambrian. Dinosaurs in the Pennsylvanian. Mammals in the Silurian. Angiosperms in the Triassic. Etc. etc. etc.

Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.

The basic phyla were already existant in the Precambrian. Read the link I cited above. Almost half of all animal phyla are types of worms. There is lots of evidence of lots of types of worms in the Precambrian. Also, because hard body parts and structural supports developed immediatly preceding the Cambrian, the huge huge huge advantage this grants to lifeforms; allowing them to diversify, throw other organisms out of old niches, and then diversify some more.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you elaborate?

yes, please explain to us how the entire animal kingdom PE'd at once.

As I said before in my post, a large portion of the basic animal phyla were already existant. The idea that these basic phyla managed to form all the others in the 30 million years immediatly following a huge die off is far from far-fetched.

Can you explain PE again. It might be useful right about here.

I dont' know a good definition off the top of my head but punctuated equilibrium is descussed at great length (from the man himself ) here.

The quote at the end is great.

 

[Ark Guy]

troodon, ah, nice try...but ad-hocery really isn't scientific.

 

[weblord]

can it grow on tropical soil like in our country?

 

[troodon]

troodon, ah, nice try...but ad-hocery really isn't scientific.

What? What part of my post was ad hoc?

After a large extinction evolution predicts a huge explosion in diversity. This has been shown to be true in the Cambrian, in the Permian, in the Triassic, and in the Tertiary.

You claimed that there was a huge explosion in design in which "the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage"

I showed that this is not true. Several major phyla already existed in the Precambrian and there is a gap of several tens of millions of years for these animals to "suddenly appear fully developed". To quote Gould from the link I posted earlier, "Five to ten thousand years may be an eternity in human time, but such an interval represents an earthly instant in almost any geological situation."

Also, you did not address any of my post. If any of it is ad hoc, please point to specific portions and not use a blanket statement.

can it grow on tropical soil like in our country?

Can what grow?

 

[lucaspa]

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth.

Yes, common ancestry is presented in schools factually. As is gravity, round earth, cell theory, and heliocentrism among others.

The reason for this is that the evidence is so overwhelming in all these fields that it is perverse to withhold provisional asssent.

In answering the question we must ask the question:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?

That is the myth that this thread will dispel. They don't "suddenly" appear "fully developed with no ancestral lineage." The abstract in the OP gives an ancestor to molluscs. Or didn't you understand that?

In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Actually, you do. What are phyla? Or any of the other taxa you mentioned? They are groups of species. So, the accurate way to state this is that the representatives of the major phyla are identifiable in the Cambrian. You don't have the thousands or tens of thousands of species of each phyla in the Cambrian. Instead you have 1- 10 species.

The reason for this is that, for any orgnanism, you have to put it somewhere in the classification system. There is no "not quite in phylum Annelid (worms) or phylum Mollusca (molluscs)" There is no "looks a little like later molluscs but not a lot like them". Systematicists (those who classify) have decided to put organisms in the higher taxa their descendents ended up in.

So, each species in the Cambrian has its own species name which means it is in a genus (since a species name is the genus + species), family, order, class, and phylum. As I say, many phylum in the Cambrian are represented by less than 5 species.

And this is exactly what evolution says should happen. Since phyla are groups of species, how should they start? As a single species!!! Actually, they should start as a variety in some other species. But basically, the ancestry of two phyla is when one species splits in two and Species A goes down one path so that its descendents are classed as one phyla and Species B goes down another path, diverging from Species A, so that its descendents are another phyla.

Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor.

You know, ArkGuy, here you are just repeating from a website and not looking at the OP! That paper does show slow divergence from a common ancestor! The ancestor was very similar to the molluscs in the Cambrian but the shell wasn't hard.

If you want people to listen to you, then you have to listen yourself. This post is a knee jerk reaction without even looking at the OP.

 

[lucaspa]

The silence is deafening

Some of us have lives. You should hold your tongue on the issue to avoid embarrassment.

I did answer. Now please address the issue in the OP of a "mollusc-like" organism before the Cambrian!

More data for you to ignore:

M. W. Martin, D. V. Grazhdankin, S. A. Bowring, D. A. D. Evans, M. A. Fedonkin, J. L. Kirschvink "Age of Neoproterozoic Bilatarian Body and Trace Fossils, White Sea Russia: Implications for Metazoan Evolution," Science 288 841-45 (2000).
Eoporpita, Age: 555.3 +/- 0.3 (White Sea Russia (Zimnie Gory) General Description: Thick tentacles surrounding a central body nearly 6cm across. Classification: Previously was thought to be a chondrophorine, but now is considered to be a benthic polyp similar to a sea anemone. Locations: White Sea Russia (Zimnie Gory) and Ediacara Hills South Australia

So, here is a representative of the phylum sea anemones are in before the Cambrian.

You realize that, according to your claims, that fossil can't be there. The fact of its existence shows your claim to be wrong. There are pre-Cambrian fossils.

Now, there aren't a lot of them. Why? There are several reasons:

1. Not much pre-Cambrian rock is exposed. In the 520 million years since the beginning of the Cambrian most of the sedimentary rock laid down in that period has been exposed and eroded, thus destroying it and the fossils it contained.

2. Soft tissue organisms don't fossilize well. The Cambrian Explosion correlates with an increase in the oxygen content of the atmosphere and thus the ability to form hard shells, which fossilize better. Thus, the Cambrian represents selective data.

3. Adaptive radiation following a mass extinction. The evidence is that the Eidacaran animals of 10 million years before the Cambrian represent a different evolutionary lineage. Earth went thru a "snowball" period between the Eidacarans and the Cambrian. That caused the major extinction of the Eidacarans and left all those ecological niches open. What we are seeing in the Cambrian is the adaptive radiation into those niches.

Now, this has happened in recent times. The most famous are the Galapagos finches. Over a dozen species all descended from a single species of finch that migrated from the mainland. Here the adaptive radiation is recent, so that there has only been time for a few species still classed in one genus.

But think, people. What happens as time goes on and each of those species continues to diverge? Each one becomes the ancestor to several species of a new genus. Then those species continue to diverge and become genera of their own, so now we have a family. The family diverges and now we have an order, the order splits and diverges thru new species, genera, and family and now we have a class. Continue the process one more level and now we have a phylum. All from a simple speciation.

This is what happened in the Cambrian. It happened 520 million years ago so now there has been the length of time to have all the speciations and divergences so that the species we see in the Cambrian were the ancestors to new phyla. It's not top down when you actually look at the species involved and consider the process.

 

[The Barbarian]

And then there's this from the Precambrian:

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/bspriggina.gif
Spriggina. What Cambrian creature does it resemble?

The idea that all phyla suddenly popped into existence in the Cambrian is hooey.

 

[lucaspa]

troodon, ah, nice try...but ad-hocery really isn't scientific.

1. You haven't demonstrated Troodon use ad hoc. You just used a phrase without any indication you know what it means. You asked for an explanation. You got it. Now you simply can't dismiss it as ad hoc. You must show it is ad hoc. Can you do that? Or can you just throw around terms you don't understand?

2. Ignoring the data absolutely is not scientific. And yet, you have ignored the data of the OP from the beginning! When are you going to address the FACT of a mollusc-like animal before the Cambrian?

 

[Ark Guy]

It's real simple troodon...either show me the morphological changes of several ancestral linanages found in the cambrian rock....or retract.

 

[lucaspa]

It's real simple troodon...either show me the morphological changes of several ancestral linanages found in the cambrian rock....or retract.

LOL!! My posts too tough for you, Arkguy?

Remember your claim! NO precedents to the Cambrian phyla before the Cambrian!

Now you move the goalposts because you are getting falsified. "Morphological changes of several ancestral lineages [corrected spelling] found in cambrian rock" LOL!

When falsified, change the goalposts! Quick. Demand retraction from other people but don't retract yourself!

Sorry, ArkGuy, debating tricks are fun, but they ain't gonna work here.

Barbarian gave you another one. Care to comment?

Here's another site for you: http://members.rediff.com/mistakenpoint/paper2.html

One of the groups of fossils:
"The fossils seem to represent a colony rather than a single individual. In arrangement of individuals in a colony, the needle-like bodies diverge from a point where they were joined to one another (Pls. 6A and 8B). If the lateral branches found in some of these organisms (Pl. 3B) are those of the spindle-shaped organisms, the dendrite like organisms may be spindles in a different preservation and would represent colonial Hydrozoans, or Pennatulids. However, if the dendrite-like organisms are different from spindle-shaped organisms, the dendrite-like animals might have been attached to the substrate from where they diverged upward in the living form. The organisms in this case could be sessile forms of Coelenterates here-to fore unreported. "

Here we have a linneage for Hydrozoans and Pennatulids. Already gave you a lineage for molluscs. Barbarian has yet a third. How many do you need?

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa seem to be ah, er...fibbing.

Remember your claim! NO precedents to the Cambrian phyla before the Cambrian!



This is my claim..Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?


I never claimed there wasn't any fossils found prior to the pre-cambrian. That appears to be some sort of strawman on your part.

My claim is that higher taxomonic rankings occur with out the fossil support of some sort of ancestral linage. They suddenly appear.

Do you understand now?

 

[Plan 9]

The animals of the Cambrian did not "spring" into existence suddenly.

ArkGuy, Lucaspa made the opposite claim in his OP.

. Ignoring the data absolutely is not scientific. And yet, you have ignored the data of the OP from the beginning! When are you going to address the FACT of a mollusc-like animal before the Cambrian?

ArkGuy, when are you going to do this?

 

[Ark Guy]

Lucaspa...please present a linage..or retract.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think Ark Guy has his story, and he's sticking to it.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa seem to be ah, er...fibbing.

Remember your claim! NO precedents to the Cambrian phyla before the Cambrian!

This is my claim..Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?

Yep, that's what I said your claim was. "fully developed" is the same as "no precedents".

My claim is that higher taxomonic rankings occur with out the fossil support of some sort of ancestral linage. They suddenly appear.

"without the fossil support of some sort of ancestral lineage" is the same as "no precedent". So yes, I do understand.

And what I've been doing is posting fossils that are "some sort of ancestral lineage". That's what the mollusc-like bivalve is in the OP. It is very similar to molluscs (a phyla) but without the hard shell. An ancestor. Another post gave ancestors to Hydrazoans (another phyla) found before the Cambrian. Spiriginnia is an ancestor to arthropods (a phyla). Compare it to trilobites and the family resemblance is striking

Here's another one:
5. RA Kerr, Pushing back the origin of animals, Science 279: 803-804, 6 Feb. 1998. The peer reviewed article is C-W Li, J-Y Chen, T-E Hua, Precambrian sponges with cellular structures. Science 279: 879-882. Got embryonic animal fossils that lived 40-50 million years before the Cambrian.

So, ancestors to sponges (another phyla).

So, we have fossils representing "some sort of ancestral lineage". Exactly what you asked for.

Now, I suspect that, having gotten what you asked for, you will not retract your claim. Instead, you have changed the claim to avoid retraction. It looks now like what you want are detailed lineages with intermediate species. IOW, you are staking your claim to the idea that knowledge will never be found; or the absence of evidence. That is not a bright thing to do.

You might try this book: Lipps, J. H., and Signor, P., eds. Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. Plenum, New York.

And this sitehttp://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/precamb.htm
"Oldest diversified and relatively abundant marine fauna known. No skeletons.
All soft-bodied, jellyfish-like animals. 26 species, 18 genera, 4 or more phyla.
67% Cnidaria
25% Annelids (worms)
5% Arthropods"

It has nice pictures so you can see the ancestral relationships.

The data is there, Ark Guy. You just don't seem to be aware of it.