i find posts like this interesting.
we don't know how or why (because we have no proof) but we know it's a fact.
IOW, we don't know it was a natural process, but it's a fact it was.
do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Upvote
0
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.
i find posts like this interesting.The answer to the Cambrian "problem" is simple. There isn't a problem. At least no one as you are posing it here. 25-40 million years is plenty of time for the evolution of new body plans, particularly given that there was little else filling those design spaces.
There are vastly more interesting questions though, like what combination of circumstances resulted in such comparatively rapid diversification and, why was it so rapid?
That is one mighty assumption you have there.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.
Star formation or star evolution? Because larger stars used to be more common, but they don't live as long. It's not particularly mysterious, it's just a function of gravity. And we see their remnants all over the place.That is one mighty assumption you have there.
Apparently star formation is the deeper past, was much more rapid than present
day star formation.
i find posts like this interesting.
we don't know how or why (because we have no proof) but we know it's a fact.
IOW, we don't know it was a natural process, but it's a fact it was.
do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Good design and engineering.
or
Stupidity, luck, chance, randomness, blind mutation,
and
no identified driving force of any kind.
What is life trying to do anyway?
That is one mighty assumption you have there.
Apparently star formation is the deeper past, was much more rapid than present
day star formation.
Hello Shemjaza.Star formation or star evolution? Because larger stars used to be more common, but they don't live as long. It's not particularly mysterious, it's just a function of gravity. And we see their remnants all over the place.
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?
Hello Shemjaza.
Star formation.
For more than a decade, astronomers have known that stars formed
more rapidly in the past compared to today. At present, only a few stars
form each year in a typical large spiral galaxy like the Milky Way, but
five to ten billion years ago, the same kind of galaxy formed stars ten times
more quickly.
(Explaining Faster Star Formation in the Past, March 10, 2010, by Dr. Jeff Zweerink)
Star formation or star evolution? Because larger stars used to be more common, but they don't live as long. It's not particularly mysterious, it's just a function of gravity. And we see their remnants all over the place.
For more than a decade, astronomers have known that stars formed
more rapidly in the past compared to today.
"We don't see enough remnants for billions of years though, maybe a few thousand.
You know what that is called in real life? A fairy tale.
There is no proof of stars evolving or being formed anywhere.
There is NO natural process that could force gases together
in concentrations high enough to form a star.
Hello SZ.
Just curious, wondering whether all geological strata are uniform world wide?
Hello SZ.
Just curious, wondering whether all geological strata are uniform world wide?
The basic geological column is found in marine basins around the world;
Hello Dr GS Hurd.
Replicate. Even worms do it with gusto.
The basic geological column is found in marine basins around the world;
This is incorrect. The cambrian "explosion" took place over the course of 200 or so million years. hardly all at once. And there are ancestral fossils, tons, in fact. Plus, precambrian fossils also exist. bacteria predate the cambrian entirely.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.
Incorrect, while it is certainly difficult to categorize precambrian life, given how odd and simple most of it was, certain organisms, such as bacteria from that time, can be identified and placed. However, given that many of the phyla at the time have long since died out, of course there wouldn't be categories to put these creatures into... yet. There are also these weird multicellular organisms with combinations of plantlike and animal-like traits... I am not even sure there is a Kingdom level of classification that can accommodate 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.
200 million years may be fast in the context of evolution, but not even close to "all created in a day" fast. Additionally, there are many "explosions" of diversity like that; they just primarily occur after mass extinctions.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.
They do have lineages, although it is harder to trace them due to how old and fragile the fossils are. Most fossils end up eroding away long before we can discover them, and the older they are, the more likely this is to happen. But the fossils do exist. http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/charnia_fossils.jpg http://static.palaeontologyonline.com/Cam_Figure_3.jpg http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/ediacarans.gif it certainly doesn't help how different they appear from modern life forms.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?
For one thing, WE classify animals into categories, they do not come "prepackaged" into nice groups for us. In fact, the ones on the borders between phyla are argued about constantly. Additionally, evolution is not uniform; depending on the environment, rate of mutation, and reproduction speed, species will evolve faster or slower. The cambrian explosion has a cause: increased oxygen in our atmosphere making it possible for alternative means of cellular survival to exist that previously could not. Prior to that point, the size of multicellular organisms was exceedingly limited. It basically opened up a bunch of niches like an extinction event would, which is why "explosions" of evolution tend to follow mass extinctions.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.
But we do see regions where stars are in the process of forming. As denser regions of gas and dust collapse under the force of gravity heat is released, and when the collapse has led to interior pressures and temperatures high enough, Hydrogen is fused to Helium, producing enough energy to balance the gravitational collapse, and a star is born.There is no proof of stars evolving or being formed anywhere.
Gravity is one way to do it. On a much smaller scale, a shock wave, such as that produced by a nuclear fission reaction is another.There is NO natural process that could force gases together in concentrations high enough to form a star.
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?