The Cambrian problem

[RickG]

Thanks!

So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that basically saying that we lack fossils that demonstrate changes in one form to another? In other words, there is no (logical) "progression"?

With respect to all life that has previously existed fossilization is quite rare. What kind of changes do you expect to see? You mentioned the Coelacanth in a previous post. Perhaps that is a good example to demonstrate evolution, not of a species but an entire genera. Since this is extensive I'm an going to provide a link which demonstrates what I am saying. Look at all the different genera we know about the coelacanth progressive from the Devonian to the present. You will need to page down to the "Timeline of Genera" to see what I'm talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

What do we know today, as it relates to this question? The idea of the question seems to be, why the absence of abundant (evolutionist-termed) "transitional" fossils prior to the Cambrian period?

There are many precambrian fossils dating back 4 Ga (billion years). The thing is that the great diversity of phyla is not seen until the Cambrian and just prior to it. There are two main reasons why the fossil record is more sparse prior to the Cambrian. First, geologic processes rework the earths surface destroying much of early earth's original crust. Second would be the Great Oxygenation Event (GOE). Before then, earths environment was very hostile. Prior to it all life forms were anaerobic.

Isn't evolution based on the idea that all life is the result of descent with modification which over millions of years has resulted in the variety of life we see today? Isn't the prediction of Darwin's evolution that there would be "innumerable" transitional fossils?

We have a gazillion more fossils than Darwin ever dreamed about along with numerous transitional fossils.

Which would it be, no need for fossils to verify the hypothesis or the need for fossils to verify the hypothesis? I'm not clear.

Fossils would be needed but they would not need to be transitional.

Doesn't "life forms" before Cambrian present a big step to the phyla you are referring to. Animals alone represent 32-39 phyla, not including invertebrate, and plant life. So, that is the question, why the relatively sudden appearance as compared to the pre-cambrian era? What is the estimated number of transitions need to go from these pre-cambrian forms to the cambrian forms? Multiply that times 32-39. Where are they?

Transitional fossils are not necessary. If evolution were false we would see fossils of all life forms that ever existed in all layers of sedimentary strata.

"If evolution were false..." Your statement includes your assumption based on worldview, i.e. "we would not find...". However, there is no denying the fossils are there. There is no denying that there is some relative order associated with them. But that's all we can observe. Everything else is speculation or assumption based on worldview.

No my statement is based on my education and experience in the earth sciences. From what you said I gather you agree that the fossil record suggests evolution but doesn't verify it. Again, if evolution is false, then how did all of the fauna and flora get into the fossil record over geologic time without evolution. Just popped into existence at the right place and time? Hummmm?

For example, The creationist looks at the fossils and says a creature died (maybe one still around or one extinct). But the evolutionist looks at the fossils and says, wow, that one is changing into that one. How do you verify that? Science starts with falsifiable / verifiable questions.

By the changes seen. It takes many over a long period of time. One species does not change into another species by one or several generations.

Could the fossil arrangement also be the result of a worldwide cataclysmic event or other as of yet unknown form of geological layering? Must they be the result of millions of years of death and birth with mutations and slight modifications from one form to another that suggests we are all just here by accident and by purely naturalistic means (i.e. no need for God)? We only have "bones in the dirt".

Absolutely, there are 5 major and some 20 minor extinction events. As for just bones in the dirt, "the dirt" is where the information is contained. Geochemistry of that dirt reveals the past environments not only of the dirt itself, but the oceans and atmosphere as well.

Nevertheless, evolutionists see the fossils one way, and creationists see them another way. It is a never-ending discussion because it involves beliefs and worldviews.

I think the proper thing to do there is to express from different perspective. Rather than beliefs and worldviews, I would use the words beliefs and physical evidence.

RickG, I appreciate your civility in your responses. Thank you. I just want to discuss the science, not debate worldviews.

Same here. My main desire here is to discuss the science and show what is correct and not correct from a scientific point of view. I believe I mentioned earlier that the creation science community often says they use the same evidence as that of mainstream science but have a different interpretation. I think it is unfortunate that that is not the case. I have yet to see a different interpretation of the same evidence. Emphasis is on "same evidence".[/quote]

 

[Astrophile]

Animals alone represent 32-39 phyla, not including invertebrate, and plant life.

Can you explain this to a non-biologist? I thought that a phylum was 'one of the major kinds of group used in classifying animals', for example arthropods, vertebrates, molluscs, annelids (segmented worms), echinoderms, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, and flatworms (platyheminthes). Now you say that 'animals' represent 32-39 phyla, not including invertebrates. What do you mean by animals? Can you name some of these 32-39 non-invertebrate phyla?

 

[Jfrsmth]

With respect to all life that has previously existed fossilization is quite rare. What kind of changes do you expect to see? You mentioned the Coelacanth in a previous post. Perhaps that is a good example to demonstrate evolution, not of a species but an entire genera. Since this is extensive I'm an going to provide a link which demonstrates what I am saying. Look at all the different genera we know about the coelacanth progressive from the Devonian to the present. You will need to page down to the "Timeline of Genera" to see what I'm talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

You and I are looking at the same thing. I see just creatures of which there is evidence for in the fossil record; you, or evolutionists rather, see "transitions" from one creature to another. This is what I am talking about: two different worldviews or beliefs as you mentioned. Both are based on the evidence presented to us. I say, wow, cool, why does there need to be a change from one to another? Is there really a change from one to another? In fact, why do we have living fossils today if they were supposedly "left behind" millions of years ago (http://io9.gizmodo.com/12-of-the-most-astounding-living-fossils-known-to-sci-1506539384). Some of these living fossils are pretty "weird" looking just as some of the supposed "transitional" fossils. Yet, why do we assume because it is odd looking that it must be changing into something?

There are many precambrian fossils dating back 4 Ga (billion years). The thing is that the great diversity of phyla is not seen until the Cambrian and just prior to it. There are two main reasons why the fossil record is more sparse prior to the Cambrian. First, geologic processes rework the earths surface destroying much of early earth's original crust. Second would be the Great Oxygenation Event (GOE). Before then, earths environment was very hostile. Prior to it all life forms were anaerobic.

So, here, just as I gave, a speculation regarding cataclysmic event. Why would we see some fossils but not others?

We have a gazillion more fossils than Darwin ever dreamed about along with numerous transitional fossils.

"Dr. Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a trnasitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid latter as follows:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transistions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? ..."

(Darwin's Enigma: Ebbing the Tide of Naturalism, Luther Sunderland, 1998)

"Paleontologists today generally recognize that while the fossil record is imperfect, it is still adequate to assess questions about evolution."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup091141.html

"Most of the animal groups that are represented in the fossil record first appear, "fully formed" and identifiable as to their phylum, in the Cambrian, some 550 million years ago. These include such anatomically complex and distinctive types as trilobites, echinoderms, brachiopods, molluscs, and chordates. ... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla"

R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow and P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pp. 9-10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001) cited in:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup091141.html

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change,..."

"Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish."

http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis

Fossils would be needed but they would not need to be transitional.

That contradicts Darwin's original assumption and falsifies his theory. Is there a new theory of evolution?

Transitional fossils are not necessary. If evolution were false we would see fossils of all life forms that ever existed in all layers of sedimentary strata.

Here you are including your beliefs. What do we see however? There are anomalies related to the geological column:

"Anomalous Fossils: Evolutionists often tell us that there are no contradictions to the evolutionary fossil order. However, they have to explain many anomalies in order to make the geological column "consistent." One type of anomaly is finding two fossils of different ages in the same layer. "

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/10/toppling-darwinist-geological-column.html

These anomalies falsify the hypothesis. How can they not?

No my statement is based on my education and experience in the earth sciences. From what you said I gather you agree that the fossil record suggests evolution but doesn't verify it. Again, if evolution is false, then how did all of the fauna and flora get into the fossil record over geologic time without evolution. Just popped into existence at the right place and time? Hummmm?

Why couldn't it have been created? Are suggesting everything came from nothing by purely natural processes, which cannot have happened in the universe of probability (http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)? While creationists just simply believe that God created everything from nothing.

I think the proper thing to do there is to express from different perspective. Rather than beliefs and worldviews, I would use the words beliefs and physical evidence.

Me too.

Same here. My main desire here is to discuss the science and show what is correct and not correct from a scientific point of view. I believe I mentioned earlier that the creation science community often says they use the same evidence as that of mainstream science but have a different interpretation. I think it is unfortunate that that is not the case. I have yet to see a different interpretation of the same evidence. Emphasis is on "same evidence".

[/QUOTE]

Ah, but how can science tell us what is "correct" or "incorrect"? Science gives us the facts or observations, but the interpretations belong to us. We are dealing with opinions here. I thought I have been presenting you with "interpretations" of the same evidence??

 

[Jfrsmth]

ToE is simply the best explanation for the diversity and biodistribution of life, and enjoys multiple independent lines of evidence. In fact, there are no competing theories; it's the only game in town.

Unfortunately for you, you're in the unenviable position of having to defend silly, nonsensical explanations that only fool the gullible, indoctrinated and ignorant. In spite of what professional creationists tell you, there is no controversy, as academia the world over uses ToE everyday for the advancement of our understanding of the natural sciences. Whereas creationism is not used at any academic institution or lab, and has contributed not one thing to our collective understanding of science.

I'll ask you what I've asked other cdesign proponentsists; When Dr. Shubin discovered T. roseae, did he use ToE to predict where he might find her, or did he use creationism?

"Only game in town" . . . wow, meaning, there can be no further discussion of it with you.

I am quite happy in the position I am in. I do not have to defend anything. I am simply enjoying a discussion between mature adults.

"The world over"? Whoa, I didn't know that. I thought some countries think it is kind of silly.

"In some parts of the world, such as countries in northeastern Asia, evolution has had a relatively solid toehold in curricula for decades. But even in the U.K. the rise of publicly funded free schools allow alternatives to state-approved science curricula. And in some Muslim-majority countries, such as Pakistan, many teachers tell students to disregard the evolution unit entirely because the theory is incorrect."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-education-abroad/

"Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

"Some people simply don't know what to believe and sometimes agree or disagree with theories and ideas put forward by both creationist's and evolutionist's.

The countries were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The "evolutionist" view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the "creationist" view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%)."

http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634

And what about T. roseae?

"However, it is inaccurate to claim that Tiktaalik and the other forms represent some sort of “fish-amphibian transition” or are a “missing link” between fishes and amphibians."

"Tiktaalik and the other forms were actually akin in many respects to the ancient lungfish and coelacanth species that survive to this day. For this reason, they are better described as representing the “emergence of vertebrates onto land.”

http://www.britannica.com/animal/Tiktaalik-roseae

It looks to me that someone is interpreting this as something important?

 

[HitchSlap]

"Only game in town" . . . wow, meaning, there can be no further discussion of it with you.

I am quite happy in the position I am in. I do not have to defend anything. I am simply enjoying a discussion between mature adults.

"The world over"? Whoa, I didn't know that. I thought some countries think it is kind of silly.

"In some parts of the world, such as countries in northeastern Asia, evolution has had a relatively solid toehold in curricula for decades. But even in the U.K. the rise of publicly funded free schools allow alternatives to state-approved science curricula. And in some Muslim-majority countries, such as Pakistan, many teachers tell students to disregard the evolution unit entirely because the theory is incorrect."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-education-abroad/

"Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

"Some people simply don't know what to believe and sometimes agree or disagree with theories and ideas put forward by both creationist's and evolutionist's.

The countries were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The "evolutionist" view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the "creationist" view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%)."

http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634

And what about T. roseae?

"However, it is inaccurate to claim that Tiktaalik and the other forms represent some sort of “fish-amphibian transition” or are a “missing link” between fishes and amphibians."

"Tiktaalik and the other forms were actually akin in many respects to the ancient lungfish and coelacanth species that survive to this day. For this reason, they are better described as representing the “emergence of vertebrates onto land.”

http://www.britannica.com/animal/Tiktaalik-roseae

It looks to me that someone is interpreting this as something important?

Right, Muslims and Christians reject ToE. Go figure.

 

[Loudmouth]

You and I are looking at the same thing. I see just creatures of which there is evidence for in the fossil record; you, or evolutionists rather, see "transitions" from one creature to another. This is what I am talking about: two different worldviews or beliefs as you mentioned. Both are based on the evidence presented to us.

Then what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being evidence of evolution? Would it be fair to say that you would never accept any fossil as evidence of evolution, no matter what it looked like?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Only game in town" . . . wow, meaning, there can be no further discussion of it with you.

I am quite happy in the position I am in. I do not have to defend anything. I am simply enjoying a discussion between mature adults.

It would seem that you have a dogmatic position where no evidence will ever budge you from you conclusion. Are we wrong?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Right, Muslims and Christians reject ToE. Go figure.

Do I have to reply to that?

"...many teachers tell students to disregard the evolution unit entirely because the theory is incorrect."

Can we stay on topic here?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Then what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being evidence of evolution? Would it be fair to say that you would never accept any fossil as evidence of evolution, no matter what it looked like?

Does a fossil that looks different have to be a transitional fossil and evidence of evolution?

It is only a fossil, which means a creature / organism, lived and died, was buried rapidly, and fossilized.

I'm trying to ascertain what makes something that looks different (or even similar to modern species) a transitional fossil. Who gets to say?

 

[Loudmouth]

Does a fossil that looks different have to be a transitional fossil and evidence of evolution?

I am asking you how you determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

It is only a fossil, which means a creature / organism, lived and died, was buried rapidly, and fossilized.

A transitional organism would also live, die, and fossilize, would it not?

I'm trying to ascertain what makes something that looks different (or even similar to modern species) a transitional fossil. Who gets to say?

What do you say? You claim that you are interpreting the evidence, so show us how you interpret it. What criteria do you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

 

[Jfrsmth]

It would seem that you have a dogmatic position where no evidence will ever budge you from you conclusion. Are we wrong?

No, I just try be a critical thinker with an open mind. It's hard to be dogmatic when I don't know everything. Does anybody know everything?

What evidence? We are looking at the same things.

"It would seem that you have a dogmatic position where no evidence will ever budge you from you conclusion." And you?

 

[bhsmte]

No, I just try be a critical thinker with an open mind. It's hard to be dogmatic when I don't know everything. Does anybody know everything?

What evidence? We are looking at the same things.

"It would seem that you have a dogmatic position where no evidence will ever budge you from you conclusion." And you?

Doesn't appear, your open mind doesn't recognize boatloads of evidence.

Must be some other factor, going on in your mind.

 

[Jfrsmth]

What do you say? You claim that you are interpreting the evidence, so show us how you interpret it. What criteria do you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

Please tell me. I am not promoting evolution.

I am looking at a wonderful array of life that has either died off or is still with us today. I don't see transitions?

Are you speaking of variations within species? I see that. We all do. But how does that equate to becoming another creature as evolution posits?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I just try be a critical thinker with an open mind.

What I am asking for is the criteria you use as part of your critical thinking. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional?

What evidence? We are looking at the same things.

So what would you need to see in a fossil in order to accept it as being transitional?

 

[Loudmouth]

Please tell me. I am not promoting evolution.

You are promoting the claim that there are no transitional fossils. How did you determine that?

I am looking at a wonderful array of life that has either died off or is still with us today. I don't see transitions?

What features are these fossils missing that a transitional would have, in your opinion?

Are you speaking of variations within species? I see that. We all do. But how does that equate to becoming another creature as evolution posits?

You tell me. You claim that these fossils are not evidence for evolution. Why?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Doesn't appear, your open mind doesn't recognize boatloads of evidence.

Must be some other factor, going on in your mind.

I encounter this all of the time with evolutionary thinking people - attack anyone who questions the almighty theory of evolution; attack the messenger; seek to belittle them, go after their character, ... instead of objectively examining and addressing the facts; can't we just stay on topic without your comments degrading to personal derision?

Me, I am not at all afraid to discover the truth, because I trust the God of the bible to work it all out. Evolutionists do not seem to have that peace. There does not seem to be any other recourse for them.

So, unless you can stay on topic, I will no longer reply to your comments, okay.

 

[Loudmouth]

I encounter this all of the time with evolutionary thinking people - attack anyone who questions the almighty theory of evolution; attack the messenger; seek to belittle them, go after their character, ... instead of objectively examining and addressing the facts; can't we just stay on topic without your comments degrading to personal derision?

If you were objectively examining the fossil record you could tell us what objective criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do I have to reply to that?

"...many teachers tell students to disregard the evolution unit entirely because the theory is incorrect."

Can we stay on topic here?

"Many teachers" in Muslim countries? Go figure.

Are you seriously suggesting rigorous academic institutions and labs use creationism to advance our understanding of the natural sciences? Shirley, you jest.

 

[Jfrsmth]

If you were objectively examining the fossil record you could tell us what objective criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

I did not create "transitional" fossils. Darwin did.

You use the word "objectively" as if only you are being objective. That was a nice setup for any future readers of this thread.

I have been telling you: I do not see what makes a fossil transitional. All I see are fossils. Can't an evolutionist explain it to me?

Is it because the fossils look different and are supposedly in various layers that makes them "transitional"? So, that would mean to an evolutionist that an Indohyus becomes a Cetotherium in about 12 steps based on pretty pictures and millions of years of mutations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)?

Variations within species is certainly science, but to say one animal changed into another is a stretch.

 

[HitchSlap]

I did not create "transitional" fossils. Darwin did.

Did Dr. Shubin use ToE or creationism, to predict where he might find T. roseae, a perfect transitional fossil?