Putting the Cambrian explosion into perspective.

[Cheeky Monkey]

Larry Moran on the Sandwalk blog had a great illustration of what portion of the common descent of life on earth we're discussing when looking at the Cambrian explosion. It's the bit circled in red

Figure adapted from Keeling, P.J., Burger, G., Durnford, D.G., Lang, B.F., Lee, R.W., Pearlman, R.E., Roger, A.J. & Gray, M.W. (2005) The tree of eukaryotes. Trends in ecology & evolution 20:670-676. [doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.09.005]
Trends in Ecology and Evolution - The tree of eukaryotes

 

[CabVet]

Great illustration, and so much for an "explosion".

 

[driewerf]

Larry Moran on the Sandwalk blog had a great illustration of what portion of the common descent of life on earth we're discussing when looking at the Cambrian explosion. It's the bit circled in red


Figure adapted from Keeling, P.J., Burger, G., Durnford, D.G., Lang, B.F., Lee, R.W., Pearlman, R.E., Roger, A.J. & Gray, M.W. (2005) The tree of eukaryotes. Trends in ecology & evolution 20:670-676. [doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.09.005]
Trends in Ecology and Evolution - The tree of eukaryotes

[Eternal Dragon style]These are just drawins. I want to see real evidence. [/Eternal Dragon style]

 

[AceHero]

Larry Moran on the Sandwalk blog had a great illustration of what portion of the common descent of life on earth we're discussing when looking at the Cambrian explosion. It's the bit circled in red

Figure adapted from Keeling, P.J., Burger, G., Durnford, D.G., Lang, B.F., Lee, R.W., Pearlman, R.E., Roger, A.J. & Gray, M.W. (2005) The tree of eukaryotes. Trends in ecology & evolution 20:670-676. [doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.09.005]
Trends in Ecology and Evolution - The tree of eukaryotes

[Eternal Dragon style]These are just drawins. I want to see real evidence. [/Eternal Dragon style]

[ED]Yeah, where in Genesis is this? So Noah put these on the ark?[/ED]

 

[EternalDragon]

[Eternal Dragon style]These are just drawins. I want to see real evidence. [/Eternal Dragon style]

Yes, that is an imaginary chart linking nothing but similarities. It does not show nor is evidence for evolution. Funny how some accept it as such.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, that is an imaginary chart linking nothing but similarities. It does not show nor is evidence for evolution. Funny how some accept it as such.

Right, because if life did evolve then no species would share similarities . . . oh wait, that's wrong.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Yes, that is an imaginary chart linking nothing but similarities. It does not show nor is evidence for evolution. Funny how some accept it as such.

Well it's a chart based on comparing similarities and differences in heritable characteristics. Please explain why that wouldn't be evidence for common descent given that courts accept the same type of evidence in DNA forensics and paternity cases.

 

[AceHero]

[Eternal Dragon style]These are just drawins. I want to see real evidence. [/Eternal Dragon style]

Yes, that is an imaginary chart linking nothing but similarities. It does not show nor is evidence for evolution. Funny how some accept it as such.

Nothing will ever convince you that evolution is true. It's quite sad. Whether you believe in God or not, science is unbelievably fascinating and we should embrace the discoveries scientists continue to make about humanity's history.

 

[Skaloop]

Based on the title of the OP, I expected this to be about how the Cambrian explosion was actually a period of many millions of years. But I like this image.

 

[EternalDragon]

Right, because if life did evolve then no species would share similarities . . . oh wait, that's wrong.

It would be the same evidence either way. It shows evolution to you and it shows ID to me.

 

[CabVet]

Based on the title of the OP, I expected this to be about how the Cambrian explosion was actually a period of many millions of years. But I like this image.

We can certainly add that to the facts about this explosion: 1) The "explosion" was a lot longer than people think it was; 2) The "explosion" involved a lot less taxa than people think it did.

 

[EternalDragon]

We can certainly add that to the facts about this explosion: 1) The "explosion" was a lot longer than people think it was; 2) The "explosion" involved a lot less taxa than people think it did.

The fact is that you think you can date things like rocks and that you think they represent a picture of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact is that you think you can date things like rocks and that you think they represent a picture of evolution.

The facts are that we can date rocks and they do represent a picture of evolution.

Fascinating how that works out, isn't it?

And meanwhile you have yet to supply any scientific evidence that supports any of your beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact is that you think you can date things like rocks and that you think they represent a picture of evolution.

So how would truly old rocks differ from the ones we have?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

The fact is that you think you can date things like rocks and that you think they represent a picture of evolution.

Well cool. Rocks can be dated and genetics can be used to trace the ancestry of organisms as they evolved.

 

[EternalDragon]

So how would truly old rocks differ from the ones we have?

I thought only volcanic rock can be measured for dates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought only volcanic rock can be measured for dates.

As a rule igneous rocks are easiest to date.

Of course if a lava deposit lies right over a sedimentary layer we know what?

And if that a sedimentary layer with the same fossil assemblage lied right over a volcanic layer we would know what about that layer there?

 

[EternalDragon]

As a rule igneous rocks are easiest to date.

Of course if a lava deposit lies right over a sedimentary layer we know what?

And if that a sedimentary layer with the same fossil assemblage lied right over a volcanic layer we would know what about that layer there?

That volcanic activity covered the sediment.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

That volcanic activity covered the sediment.

We also have a minimum age for the sediment unless you think that the sediment can be laid down under the lava after the lava was laid down on top of the sediment.

 

[EternalDragon]

We also have a minimum age for the sediment unless you think that the sediment can be laid down under the lava after the lava was laid down on top of the sediment.

You have no age of anything.