IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Now remember, it is not quantity that made their appearances thats significant (although there is a high quantity too) but the quality of the organisms taking in account the widely varying anatomical designs, or novel body plans. When almost all the animal phylas made their appearance at that time, save bryozoans, why is it that you ask for the sub-taxas?

---

We ask because most creationists place the formation of all life in a 6-day period. That surelly doesn't give much time for speciation.

quote:

---

Is there a "Law of creation" that you know of that states that God should create all living organisms at the same time?

---

Actually, there is. Or are you going extra-biblical on us?

quote:

---

He gave rise to the phylas... family, genera, and species took their toll, may be sometime later.

---

Why? Why did an omnipotent creator have to wait for days or weeks or decades?

quote:

---

But how does that invalidate my claim?

---

Because the Cambrian Period is 50 million years long! Whe not even one mammal fossil? Or even a single shark tooth?

quote:

---

This what my actual argument against evolution and for creation really is: How is it that evolution predicts the gradual step-by-step cumulative progression of complexity in organisms while the cambrian explosion turns out to be diametrically the opposite?

---

And the actual argument we make is: 'Why don't you discuss modern evolutionary theory?' You go ahead and whack that strawman all you want, it really has nothing to do with what any of us here believe.

quote:

---

The wide mosaic variety of living organisms (that comprised almost all the animal phylas) with an equally highly complex anatomical design of the novel body plans, made their appearance more than 500 years during an explosion that lasted only ~5-10 million years.

---

500 years? Where the heck do you get that number? Moreover, where do you get the 5 to 10 million year number?And you really call 5-10 million years an explosion? LOL!

quote:

---

What alternative does evolution suggest to explain this explosion?

---

You have been given an explanation several times. I am not going to repeat it here.

quote:

---

Furthermore, some Chinese scientists even believe that time period for the cambrian explosion is more like 2-3 million years (Chinese National Geography 467 Sept 1999)!!

---

This is not really supportable by any evidence.

quote:

---

Believe it or not, but this big bang has really blown the socks of evolution and I reckon they will have one hell of a time justifying this explosion and hanging on to their flimsy thread of materialism.

---

Not at all. Have you ever heard of PE?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
I should remind you that fossils of soft-bodied organisms are famously found in Cambrian Preservat-Lagerstatten such as the Burgess Shale and the Chengjiang locality in China. Fossil bacteria are reported from both Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks.

---

Ah, good. You are beginning to see that there was no true 'explosion' in the Cambrian.

quote:

---

Why would depositional conditions favor preservation of bacteria in both Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks, but soft-bodied multicellular organisms only in the Phanerozoic and uppermost Precambrian?

---

I think it's called evolution... Actually, this is a question that YOU have to answer.

quote:

---

The fossil record is obviously incomplete, but there is no evidence it is so incomplete it would not preserve fossils of soft-bodied organisms for half their supposed geologic history!!

---

It doesn't. What's the point?

quote:

---

I haven't the slightest idea. Species appear and disappear abruptly, according to scientists and they show no "gradual evolution" but "the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another".

---

However, if you look at the overall trend from single celled animals to complex, cultured organisms. There is a gradual trend.

quote:

---

Thats the sole problem of evolution.

---

I'm not sure how this is a problem. I thought we had discussed this earlier.

quote:

---

Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links?

---

Well, of the ones that are missing, I would say that they are simply unfound.

quote:

---

You have generalized it greatly. Only if you go into details of the trend, you might realize how incredibly random it is (like I have described in the case of the trilobites).

---

You mean by this that you agree with random processes in the origin of life?

quote:

---

Interesting but would you consider the remarkable similarities between bacteria billions of years old and present bacteria? Have they not undergone evolution of any sort?

---

Well, I'm not sure how many body plans and specialized tasks you can have for a single celled animal, for one. Secondly, I might challenge you to show that they did not undergo evolution. Some genetic evidence would be compelling. Third, where in the theory of evolution does it say that an organims MUST evolve?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Listen, Mark, the theory had a nice opportunity to be confirmed in molecular biology. It didn't. End of the story.

---

So, are you saying it never will be? It sounds like you have put yourself in a logical box.

quote:

---

Mark: This thread is about fossil evidence,...

​

PB: There is no fossil evidence of gradual evolution.

---

Your point being?

quote:

---

The fossils you need ar not there, haven't been there and will never be there.

---

The only problem you have here is that there are fossils which need explaining. Are you suggesting that the progression of fossils from the Archeozoic should be ignored?

quote:

---

Like a midieval alchemist you are searching the stone of wisdom. (You will not find'm, I've got'm )

---

I seriously doubt this. Usually, we are simply describing what we see and devising an explanation. If you have fossil evidence to the contrary, we would be glad to look at it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
E: I seriously doubt this. Usually, we are simply describing what we see and devising an explanation. If you have fossil evidence to the contrary, we would be glad to look at it.

​

PB: The fossil record IS the evidence. There is no other fossil record, is there? All crucial transition forms are missing.

---

Not really. By my judgement there are ample transitionals. Others, perhaps, will never be satisfied. However, assume we accept your premise, how do you explain the fossil record?

quote:

---

The rest (minor transitions) can be explained by the GUToB. It descibes perfectly what we see. We don't need the utter hypothetical model of evolution from microbe to man since it describes things that have never been observed.

---

You mean, except for the fact that there is a chain of organisms in between.

quote:

---

If you had a fossil record that contained the major transition forms than you had a reason to set up such theory. Since you have not, the theory is completely gratuitous.

---

Not at all. The transitions from earliest life forms to present diversity must be explained somehow.

quote:

---

And now even the NDT has fallen, so there is nothing left to believe the hype.

---

I was unaware of this event. Is it common knowledge? I know of no other viable theory that explains the fossil record. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,

​

Never seen one that could qualify as a TF

​

best wishes,

---

Oh, then perhaps you could give us a definition of 'transitional fossil' that would satisfy you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Edge:

​

A transitionform is a form of transition that forms a transition between forms.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

Well, at least you attempted. However, it does leave the door open wide enough to fly an archeopteryx through...

quote:

---

Hi Judge,
Did you notice that two (out of 5) of them don't even have feathers?

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

You mean they weren't 'fully developed' birds?

quote:

---

MP: Archaeopteryx is a reptile!

​

PB: Yeah, and my dog is a reptile too!

---

Ooh, another coherrent argument from Peter! Why don't you admit it. Whenever you are faced with a transitional, you simply define it out of existence...

quote:

---

Listen, Mark, by now you should be able to understand that I do NOT believe a single word of evolutinism from microbe to man.

---

Thanks for the tip.

quote:

---

It is never observed storytelling for the gullible. Major actors in the play: Richard Dawkins, Bob Bakker, and the major part of science fiction writers.

---

And you have what? A myth that requires various and sundry miracles in order to occur. Yep, that makes sense.

quote:

---

Dear Edge and mark,
YOU are the gullible, NOT me.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

Well, I am glad we cleared that up. Now did you have some relevant point to make here?

quote:

---

Pondering the Archeaoptehryx being a reptile.

---

Hmm, not sure who said this...

quote:

---

A transition form somewnere between reptile/dinosaur and bird?

​

Based on what I wonder?

---

Well, certainly not on characteristics you would deem important. I'm sure that you'd rather ignore the features that are common with reptiles because that would contradict your notions.

quote:

---

According to histon H2 analysis my wife could be a fish or a bird.

---

LOL! According some analyses, humans could be equated with bacteria. This is a simplistic approach that I am surprised you would bring up.

quote:

---

Taxonomy is human subjectivity.

---

The problem you have is that there is more than taxonomy involved here.

quote:

---

Furthermore, over the past couple of centuries 3 (or 4) Archaeopteryx have been found.

​

All, Archaeopteryx lithographica.

​

Why, I wonder, did we find 4 Archaeopteryx lithographica?

---

Well, gee, I wonder why we find only find carbon-based life forms (since you like simplistic arguments). Maybe they are just fakes. Typical of creationists, you would rather try to make up a story that focusses more on what is not known that what IS known, and at the same time ignoring some important information that is also known.

quote:

---

Wy didn't we find the 'Archaeopteryx pseudornis', the Archaeopteryx ornis, and the Archaeopteryx euornis. Than you would have had a compelling case for evolutionism. Now you have nothing, except the Archaeopteryx (MPG).

---

As well as other lines of evidence including other transitional fossils and known ages for them. Now, I understand that to an absolutist, this would never do, but the rest of us believe that it is desirable and possible to create a workable explanation until we get more data to the contrary.

quote:

---

You forgot the mysterious particles that have no evidence in uspport of their existence - the ever elusive CREATON, and of course, the ever popular (but apparently made-up) MORPHOGENIC FIELD!

---

That's it! The creaton flux is responsible for accelerated decay! Why didn't we think of that before!(Okay, back on topic...sorry about my outburst)

quote:

---

Dear friends,
Point is that I already knew that Archaeopteryx is currently classified as bird (from Dr Walter Boles).

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

And your point is? In fact, probably we could find dissenting opinions on this such as:Dinosauricon – Dinosaurios... where Archaeopteryx is classified with the dinosaurs. You will notice also that archie was originally classified as a dinosaur and some specimens were considered to be compsognathus for a time. In fact, I have read on TO that Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (both, I believe, creationists) have argued that archie is actually a hoax composed of dinosaur fossils with feathers attached. Just how do you explain all this confusion?

quote:

---

--Maybe they were referring to Archaeoraptor? If they were talking about Archaeopteryx, they've probably asked to be ignored.

---

I don't think so. I am not competent to classify organisms, but the point is that there is and was confusion on the point. Sort of what one would expect of a transitional.

quote:

---

--A recent article in Discover (February 2003) entitled Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds (Discover Dialogue between Kathy A. Svitil & Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist, Alan Feduccia), is very interesting. Fedducia thinks birds are not descended from dinosaurs and this is briefly discussed in the dialogue.

---

That is possible. I believe that Feduccia wants birds to branch off prior to the advent of dinosaurs. In other words, they would have a common ancestor. This is not a problem for evolution, thought it would alter the lineage.

quote:

---

For commited cladists birds are dinosaurs.

---

For committed creationists, it is simply impossible for archaeopteryx to be a transitional.And for committed geologists, well, we're just committed...[This message has been edited by edge, 02-01-2003]

quote:

---

PB: Off on a tangent, here? Why can't evolutionists never give specific answers to specific questions?

---

Perhaps the questions are the problem.

quote:

---

The question is why did we find 4 A. lithographica? Similarly, why do paleontologists always find T rex?

---

Ah, now I get it! Probably because we will never have a complete fossil record. Only snapshots. THere are likely other answers to this question as well, but I don't have much time right now. Can you guess what they are?

quote:

---

And never a slightly different one, ie transitionform to ... yeah what? It is against odds. Against science.

---

Tell me, why do you think they are called 'transitional' fossils? Does this help?

quote:

---

Edge: As well as other lines of evidence including other transitional fossils and known ages for them.

​

PB: Other lines of evidence? Other TFs? Known ages? Elaborate a bit please.

---

Oh, for instance: why are probable transitionals of the whale evolution and amphibian to reptile series found at just the right time in the geological record? A coincidence, I suppose?

quote:

---

Edge: Now, I understand that to an absolutist, this would never do, but the rest of us believe...

​

PB: and that's all it is: a believe (Disperse the meme!). Glad you concur.

---

Yes, you belief in a believe. Very good. I believe in gravity, also.

quote:

---

Edge: ...that it is desirable and possible to create a workable explanation until we get more data to the contrary.

​

PB: As demonsrated, the hypothesis is NOT workable on the molecular level. So, the hypothesis is wrong.

---

But it works on the realistic level of explaining the fossil record. I daresay there is something about the molecular level that you do not understand. Perhaps your hypothesis is wrong? Nah!!!!