What to talk about...

[Skaloop]

Cambrian Explosion is one of the obvious problems for the theory of evolution. We have the fact, but we do not know the reason. Environment can change fast. But life form could not react that fast, according to evolution.

Challenge (thought you were bored): If the Cambrian Explosion IS a problem to you, why do you (already) accept evolution?

The Cambrian Explosion took place over more than 50 million years. That's not exactly fast, even in evolutionary terms.

 

[edrogati]

I didnt say you were, i was responding to juvenissun's charge that not knowing the cause of the cambrian explosion should be fatal to one's acceptance of evolutionary theory.


The arrival of hard parts and the increase of oxygen would have opened up host of unexploited niches, something that usually leads to evolutionary booms.

Apologies. I'm getting a little overenthusiastic to participate I guess.

I understand the increase in oxygen, but what might have brought on the arrival of hard parts?

I'm sorry if I'm asking basic questions. My college education is 10+ years in the past and I've been losing it more than using it.

 

[edrogati]

The Cambrian Explosion took place over more than 50 million years. That's not exactly fast, even in evolutionary terms.

So that seems to give the idea that there's a misnomer involved. Where did the term originate if this was a unremarkable event, at least in terms of geological time?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Apologies. I'm getting a little overenthusiastic to participate I guess.

I understand the increase in oxygen, but what might have brought on the arrival of hard parts?

I'm sorry if I'm asking basic questions. My college education is 10+ years in the past and I've been losing it more than using it.

Hard parts require calcification. calcium is required for certain cellular functions so some of it was always in the environment. Storing it in a structural form (like our bones) is actually not a bad way of ensuring that the organism always has a readliy available supply, in addition to its protective properties. Calcium got in the water the same way sodium did, it washed in from dissolving and weathering of rocks that contained it. A few billion years of accumulation put enough in the water that organisms could utilize it.

 

[Vene]

I hold to Theistic Evolution; the changes occurred and the mechanisms were natural, but the reasons for those changes were supernatural and the mechanisms were supernaturally coordinated.

I'm wondering what Atheistic Evolution postulates. Since you are not someone who believes nature alone is responsible for what we see in the fossil record, I don't know that you could properly give me an answer.

Atheistic evolution is just evolution. It leaves out a god driving the process, in much the same way that the theory of gravity doesn't have a god pulling various objects together.

 

[juvenissun]

The Cambrian Explosion took place over more than 50 million years. That's not exactly fast, even in evolutionary terms.

How did you count the 50 M.Y.? Was it happened in full scale just over a rock boundary?

 

[juvenissun]

I hold to Theistic Evolution; the changes occurred and the mechanisms were natural, but the reasons for those changes were supernatural and the mechanisms were supernaturally coordinated.

I'm wondering what Atheistic Evolution postulates. Since you are not someone who believes nature alone is responsible for what we see in the fossil record, I don't know that you could properly give me an answer.

What I know is that atheistic evolution CAN NOT give you a satisfactory answer. All they can do is to postulate based on available evidences and logic. They have to "believe" it could happen (by making "strong" suggestions), because it happened. Is this what you want to know?

 

[juvenissun]

So that seems to give the idea that there's a misnomer involved. Where did the term originate if this was a unremarkable event, at least in terms of geological time?

Like I said, it happened across a contact between two rock layers. Below the contact, no big fossils. Above the contact, A LOT of big (insect size or larger) fossils. That is how the term was made.

 

[juvenissun]

Apologies. I'm getting a little overenthusiastic to participate I guess.

I understand the increase in oxygen, but what might have brought on the arrival of hard parts?

I'm sorry if I'm asking basic questions. My college education is 10+ years in the past and I've been losing it more than using it.

"They" said the hard part appeared because the animal could "suddenly" manufacture its shell. One of the reason suggested is that the material for the hard shell "suddenly" became available in the ocean. Many such explanations do make sense. However, many assumptions also have to be made in order to complete the story. For example, it assumes that the animal could not make its hard shell "at all" even the material was already available before its concentration suddenly increased during the explosion.

 

[juvenissun]

If evolution had no gaps in knowledge, scientists would be out of a job. The question that would be relevant to your challenge is if that gap is large enough to threaten the viability of evolution. It isnt. It doesnt overturn the copious genetic, molecular, fossil, and other biological evidence.

The Cambrian Explosion IS a VERY LARGE gap in evolution. However, it seems only happened once in the history of earth. So, evolution scientists could focus on all other easier features but not to touch this one. Science-wise, it is OK. But faith-wise, it is self cheating. Of course, it faith is of no use to you, it would also be OK.

 

[consol]

The Cambrian Explosion IS a VERY LARGE gap in evolution. However, it seems only happened once in the history of earth. So, evolution scientists could focus on all other easier features but not to touch this one. Science-wise, it is OK. But faith-wise, it is self cheating. Of course, it faith is of no use to you, it would also be OK.

So the obvious thing to do when you don't know something is to go straight for the supernatural answer.
that really makes a lot of sense, about as much sense as a chocolate coffee pot.

But I suppose it's a lot easier to fall to your knees than it is to look for the answer yourself.

 

[edrogati]

Atheistic evolution is just evolution. It leaves out a god driving the process, in much the same way that the theory of gravity doesn't have a god pulling various objects together.

I wanted to differentiate between Theistic Evolution and other views on the driving mechanism. I guess I keep choosing the wrong names for things.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wanted to differentiate between Theistic Evolution and other views on the driving mechanism. I guess I keep choosing the wrong names for things.

This is my take on all of this:

When God created the universe, Lucifer was jealous --- he wanted it; but when God handed it over to Adam, Lucifer was, no doubt, furious. So he convinces 1/3 of the angels to follow him in "storming the castle", so to speak, but the rebellion fails.

Lucifer's next tactic? If you can't obtain the universe by force, obtain it subtly, so he tricks Adam into handing it over to him legally.

At this point, God says to Lucifer, "Okay, you finally got what you wanted. Let's see you keep it running; and, just like they say --- be careful what you ask for --- Lucifer suddenly found himself in possession of this entire universe and, not being omnipotent, he cannot keep it running, and it is losing energy or, as we say, winding down.

In an effort to give it back to God, He presented it to Jesus at the temptation in the wilderness (for a price), and Jesus said, "Nothing doing."

 

[edrogati]

This is my take on all of this:

When God created the universe, Lucifer was jealous --- he wanted it; but when God handed it over to Adam, Lucifer was, no doubt, furious. So he convinces 1/3 of the angels to follow him in "storming the castle", so to speak, but the rebellion fails.

Lucifer's next tactic? If you can't obtain the universe by force, obtain it subtly, so he tricks Adam into handing it over to him legally.

At this point, God says to Lucifer, "Okay, you finally got what you wanted. Let's see you keep it running; and, just like they say --- be careful what you ask for --- Lucifer suddenly found himself in possession of this entire universe and, not being omnipotent, he cannot keep it running, and it is losing energy or, as we say, winding down.

In an effort to give it back to God, He presented it to Jesus at the temptation in the wilderness (for a price), and Jesus said, "Nothing doing."

This is a theological crock of natural fertilizer.

 

[paug]

^ Charming.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

This is my take on all of this:

When God created the universe, Lucifer was jealous --- he wanted it; but when God handed it over to Adam, Lucifer was, no doubt, furious. So he convinces 1/3 of the angels to follow him in "storming the castle", so to speak, but the rebellion fails.

Lucifer's next tactic? If you can't obtain the universe by force, obtain it subtly, so he tricks Adam into handing it over to him legally.

At this point, God says to Lucifer, "Okay, you finally got what you wanted. Let's see you keep it running; and, just like they say --- be careful what you ask for --- Lucifer suddenly found himself in possession of this entire universe and, not being omnipotent, he cannot keep it running, and it is losing energy or, as we say, winding down.

In an effort to give it back to God, He presented it to Jesus at the temptation in the wilderness (for a price), and Jesus said, "Nothing doing."

Where in this imaginative story does Lucifer make evolution?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Ethan, I know what you mean about being bored around here. Reading AV's and dad's (et al.'s) ravings is entertaining to a point, but it gets old and then... what's left? There are no creationists here who can actually discuss science meaningfully -- which should perhaps tell us something -- and all we're left with is PRATTs, AVian fu, and dad hoc.

So thanks for asking an actual question to which you want an actual answer. And please keep doing so! As it happens, I have a question that occurred to me the other day, but I want to do a quick bit of research first.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I wanted to differentiate between Theistic Evolution and other views on the driving mechanism. I guess I keep choosing the wrong names for things.

If you read up on the theory of evolution there is no place for god/s.

If god/s are purposely guiding life, then it is not evolution.

So there is no such thing as theistic evolution, it is just a term to make religious people feel as if they are at the end of some imaginary line culminating with us. The problem with this view is that evolution is still occurring even within the human population, so we are NOT the final outcome of life on Earth, that distinction will go to some creature in the distant future.

 

[MarcusHill]

Another postulate I've heard for the cambrian explosion is sex. As soon as you have sexual reproduction, the fact that each new DNA host is actually carrying a combination of alleles from two different DNA hosts (with a few mutations) rather than merely reproducing a complete set of alleles (with a few mutations) from one DNA host means that variation, and thus evolution, can work a lot quicker. That's also a reason why no such period of rapid speciation has occurred since - you only get to invent sex once.

 

[edrogati]

If you read up on the theory of evolution there is no place for god/s.

If god/s are purposely guiding life, then it is not evolution.

So there is no such thing as theistic evolution, it is just a term to make religious people feel as if they are at the end of some imaginary line culminating with us. The problem with this view is that evolution is still occurring even within the human population, so we are NOT the final outcome of life on Earth, that distinction will go to some creature in the distant future.

I understand that. Please understand why its important that God IS involved, at least for me. I don't think that evolution has stopped or do I think that humanity is the only important species on the planet. I started my thought life with a belief in God and it's hard to discard. The Bible indicates that humanity WAS the goal for theological reasons. The fact that science and Christian theology disagree on this is difficult for me. I want to understand science, but it's hard to leave my theology out of it. That's why I try to let science tell me the how and let theology tell me why. If my God is only the "God of the gaps", then he's not much of one. That doesn't mean that he influences every single beat of my heart or anything like that. But, in my opinion, he set up and influenced the process to get to the point where there was a human being to have one.