Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Friendly Q&A
Monk
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 19 of 25 (190113)
03-04-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
03-03-2005 2:45 PM


Ok Loudmouth I'll give it a go:
Approximately 550 million years ago, an abundance of life appeared to develop relatively quickly and at the same time. This era is referred to as the pre-Cambrian and the pre-Cambrian explosion of life forms. Prior to this period, there seems to be a significant lack of fossils with which to show that evolution occurred.
One explanation suggest that prior to this period there were no hard shell creatures to leave a fossil record.
I’d like comments on the following:
  1. How does this explosion of life reconcile with evolution
  2. Are there any explanations other than the hard shell fossil theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 03-03-2005 2:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2005 7:38 PM Monk has replied
 Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 03-04-2005 8:36 PM Monk has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 24 of 25 (190182)
03-05-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
03-04-2005 7:38 PM


Re: Precambrian "explosion"
Thanks for your reply.
I wouldn’t classify 40 million years as an explosion either, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know. Anyway, even a novice like me can speculate what mammals might have looked like 40 million years ago based on the fossil record and compared to extant mammal specimens we have today. From this I acknowledge that it is a sufficiently long time for species to undergo profound changes.
NosyNed writes:
I don't see what is particularly wrong with the "hard shell" theory in any case. There are traces of multi cellular life back to around 600 million years and one would not expect much to remain of worms after 600 million years would one? Hard parts had to come in at some point. Obviously (I hope it is), that would produce a quantum leap in preservation even if there was no real change in the diversity or number of living things around at the time.
Regarding the hard shell theory, there does seem to be much speculation among experts in the field, which is why I posed the question initially.
Consider the following:
"Beyond the latest Precambrian there occurred what has appropriately been called an explosion of life forms, many of which seem to be extraordinary experiments in animal design. For a long time it was supposed that the idea of a sudden rise of complex forms of life in the Cambrian Period (on the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic border) was in fact a fallacy created by the nature of the fossil record, and that it simply represented the time when the first shelled creatures began to appear. Since shells are hard objects, they are much more capable of being preserved than soft-bodied creatures. However, from recent research it really does look as though the Earth presented these early organisms with a "clean sheet" upon which to develop all manner of designs."
(Dr. David Norman, Prehistoric Life: The Rise of the Vertebrates, pub. Boxtree limited, 1994, p. 32) Dr. Norman is Director of the Sedgwick Museum and lectures on paleontology and evolution at the University of Cambridge.
BTW, If there is another thread where the pre-Cambrian "hard shell" theory has been discused, please provide the link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2005 7:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024