The Cambrian problem

[Loudmouth]

That's not what the first link said...
The explosive appearance near the beginning of the Paleozoic Era of diverse fossils representing disparate animal clades has long been a puzzle to paleontologists and evolutionary biologists.

Please rethinnk your rely.

How do you go from "I don't know" to "God magically poofed it into being"?

 

[-57]

Then show me a fully developed mammal from the Cambrian.

Fossils layers typically represent the biome and fauna in which they lived. I wouldn't expect to find a rabbit there.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossils layers typically represent the biome and fauna in which they lived. I wouldn't expect to find a rabbit there.

Why wouldn't you expect to find rabbits in Cambrian terrestrial deposits, if creationism were true?

How can you claim that life appeared fully formed in the Cambrian when it doesn't contain a single mammal?

The Cambrian is a time period, or did you forget that?

 

[-57]

Why would erosion rates be the same throughout time?

Why wouldn't you expect to find rabbits in Cambrian terrestrial deposits, if creationism were true?

How can you claim that life appeared fully formed in the Cambrian when it doesn't contain a single mammal?

The Cambrian is a time period, or did you forget that?

Your question has already been answered.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your question has already been answered.

No, it hasn't.

Why wouldn't we find a single mammal fossil in terrestrial Cambrian deposits if creationism were true?

 

[RickG]

That's not what the first link said...
The explosive appearance near the beginning of the Paleozoic Era of diverse fossils representing disparate animal clades has long been a puzzle to paleontologists and evolutionary biologists.

Please rethinnk your rely.

Any reason you did not read any further than the opening statement? Did you not read the where they said:

"As we show here, the new data certainly do
contribute to understanding the complex temporal structure of
early metazoan evolution, but they do not muffle the explosion,
which continues to stand out as a major feature in early
metazoan history"
​

Or the entire paper which I went to the trouble to find the full text and not just an abstract. You might want to try reading something completely before "quote mining" it and misrepresenting what it is discussing.

 

[-57]

No, it hasn't.

Why wouldn't we find a single mammal fossil in terrestrial Cambrian deposits if creationism were true?

Dude...post 22.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dude...post 22.

Dude, that doesn't answer the question. Why can't we find a single mammal in Cambrian terrestrial deposits? Why can't we find a single lizard, bird, amphibian, shark, whale, or bony fish in the Cambrian?

 

[-57]

Dude, that doesn't answer the question. Why can't we find a single mammal in Cambrian terrestrial deposits? Why can't we find a single lizard, bird, amphibian, shark, whale, or bony fish in the Cambrian?

You're changing the question without answering my question.
"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 as the T.O.E. predict they should?"

To answer your question....perhaps they wern't in the neighborhood. Perhaps they were able to escape the rising water. Perhaps they bloated and didn't sink to the bodom when the fossils in the cambrian were buried. There are many reasons.

Will you now answer my question or continue to refuse to answer it?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're changing the question without answering my question.
"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 as the T.O.E. predict they should?"

How did you determine that there was no ancestral lineage leading up to those fossils?

How did you determine that they suddenly appeared?

How did you determine that they are fully developed?

Here are the most developed vertebrates in all of the Cambrian.

That's it. Those aren't fully developed. They don't have scales, bones, jaws, fins, and many other features found in fully developed vertebrate fish. And we aren't even getting to the rest of the vertebrate phylum.

How can you say that these are fully developed vertebrates when you can't even find something like an amphibian?

To answer your question....perhaps they wern't in the neighborhood. Perhaps they were able to escape the rising water. Perhaps they bloated and didn't sink to the bodom when the fossils in the cambrian were buried. There are many reasons.

Will you now answer my question or continue to refuse to answer it?

Again, the Cambrian is a time period, not a type of sediment or environment. There are Cambrian terrestrial deposits. They are devoid of life. Why is that?

Why can't we find fully developed fish in the Cambrian marine deposits? How can that be?

 

[-57]

How did you determine that there was no ancestral lineage leading up to those fossils?

How did you determine that they suddenly appeared?

How did you determine that they are fully developed?

Here are the most developed vertebrates in all of the Cambrian.

That's it. Those aren't fully developed. They don't have scales, bones, jaws, fins, and many other features found in fully developed vertebrate fish. And we aren't even getting to the rest of the vertebrate phylum.

How can you say that these are fully developed vertebrates when you can't even find something like an amphibian?



Again, the Cambrian is a time period, not a type of sediment or environment. There are Cambrian terrestrial deposits. They are devoid of life. Why is that?

Why can't we find fully developed fish in the Cambrian marine deposits? How can that be?

With all due respect...you didn't really demonstrate anything. All you have is an artist conception of what the fossils were. Where is this vertabate evolutionary linage? Secondly you presented the Myllokunmingia which is a genus of basalchordate from the Lower CambrianMaotianshan shales of China, thought to be a vertebrate,[1] although this is not conclusively proven. Why should I trust your picture?

Perhaps we should look at the eye of the trilobite.

 

[Loudmouth]

With all due respect...you didn't really demonstrate anything.

I didn't?!?!?

Where did you demonstrate any of your claims in the opening post?

All you have is an artist conception of what the fossils were. Where is this vertabate evolutionary linage?

You haven't presented any fossils. Where did you demonstrate that they were fully formed? Where did you demonstrate that they had no ancestors?

Secondly you presented the Myllokunmingia which is a genus of basalchordate from the Lower CambrianMaotianshan shales of China, thought to be a vertebrate,[1] although this is not conclusively proven. Why should I trust your picture?

Why should I trust your opinions?

Perhaps we should look at the eye of the trilobite.

Perhaps you should prove to us that the trilobite fossils had no ancestors, as you are claiming.

 

[Shemjaza]

Is that what I said?

I wanted to check what you actually accept. The Cambrian might have vertebrates but they don't even have jaws or limbs, so I don't see how they do anything but demonstrate deep time and punch a hole in creationism.

I also think it would be silly of me to get into the nitty gritty of Precambrian fossil evidence with someone who doesn't even believe in paleontology or biology.

 

[Gene2memE]

Do those that have faith in evolutionism realize that when the cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

I suspect that you are not up on current scholarship.

There's been some fairly extensive work done on Cambrian and Edaicaran biota over the past five or six year, including a massive re-evaluation of the geological layers. One of the upshots of this is that the notion of the sudden appearance of phyla/species that you describe has found to be faulty.

"We found that with improved dating and correlation of rock sequences, the short burst of appearances goes away." said Susannah Porter, associate professor in the Department of Earth Science at UCSB. "Instead, appearances of the earliest skeleton-forming animals were drawn out over more than 20 million years".

Like I said in my first post, if you understand the Cambrian explosion, geology and the rarity of fossil formation, there isn't a problem to be found. I'll leave you with a quote from the US NCSE:

"To suggest that, during the Cambrian explosion, "more than half of the major animal groups (called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record" (Explore Evolution, p. 22) stretches the true state of affairs. A number of fossils discovered from that period of time possess traits characteristic of modern phyla. Other species found at that time cannot be clearly classified in any modern phyla at all. Fossils from the period following the Cambrian, an era known as the Ordovician, more clearly show the distinct groups possessing the traits associated with many modern phyla. Fossil deposits before the Cambrian are rarer, making it difficult to be sure how sudden any appearances were."

 

[klutedavid]

Hello LoudMouth.

You may know something about the Cambrian fossil layers.

When speaking of the Cambrian fossil beds, how many sites around the
world are there?

Also LoudMouth, where are these Cambrian fossil layers located?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I wanted to check what you actually accept. The Cambrian might have vertebrates but they don't even have jaws or limbs, so I don't see how they do anything but demonstrate deep time and punch a hole in creationism.

I also think it would be silly of me to get into the nitty gritty of Precambrian fossil evidence with someone who doesn't even believe in paleontology or biology.

They deny geology, astronomy, chemistry and physics as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello LoudMouth.

You may know something about the Cambrian fossil layers.

When speaking of the Cambrian fossil beds, how many sites around the
world are there?

Also LoudMouth, where are these Cambrian fossil layers located?

You can find Cambrian deposits an every continent. There are probably Cambrian deposits where you live. Perhaps you should have asked where there are Cambrian outcrops. Since Cambrian strata are relatively old, when it comes to sedimentary rocks they will usually have other strata over them. One could always drill down to them if a sample was needed, but it makes finding fossils a bit more difficult.

Why do you ask? There is no shortage of Cambrian fossils today.

 

[klutedavid]

You can find Cambrian deposits an every continent. There are probably Cambrian deposits where you live. Perhaps you should have asked where there are Cambrian outcrops. Since Cambrian strata are relatively old, when it comes to sedimentary rocks they will usually have other strata over them. One could always drill down to them if a sample was needed, but it makes finding fossils a bit more difficult.

Why do you ask? There is no shortage of Cambrian fossils today.

Hello SZ.

Just curious, wondering whether all geological strata are uniform world wide?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Just curious, wondering whether all geological strata are uniform world wide?

No, they vary quite a bit. And one would expect them to. Go out and look where sediments are being deposited today. You will see all kinds of environments with all kinds of sedimentary deposits. So there never was a worldwide chalk deposit, or sandstone, or shale. In fact in may areas you do not see any deposition going on at all, and that is observed in the various local geologic columns. A strata may be present in some but not in others. Remember that as time went by the depostional environments changed too.

Uniformitarianism does not mean that everything is exactly the same everywhere. It only means that the same processes we see today we would see in the past.

 

[Armoured]

Do those that have faith in evolutionism realize that when the cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

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 cambrian geological record contains 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 mutations are not show to add up.

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?

The question becomes:

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 as the T.O.E. predict they should?

Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. 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 are 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 pretty much up-side-down.

Yep, it's a puzzle. I don't think anyone suggests otherwise, do they? But "puzzle"=/= "Goddidit".