Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion

I must confess I'm not a scientist--nor do I know much about this stuff. But, I, as a plain layman, can't understand scientists concluding about a "common ancestor".They discover common parts of certain animals or what not and they say "common anscestor". I can't be convinced by that. To my mind, there are other valid conclusions about this "common parts" (Homologous, is that correct?:
1) why not common ancestorS as in PLURAL?
2) why not common parts as evidence of a common designer--e.g. a Civic having common parts as Accord is evidence of common designer, HOnda? ( Of course, the draw back is the identity of the designer again... and that is admitted. But, why not designed by an unknown designer? )3) Why not just Stop this conclusion: 'in our investigation of the fossil we found animals, plants, etc of having ALMOST similar parts?'I have done a little bit of research on the so called "phylogenitic tree", and I am not convinced of the conclusion reached--common ancestor. All I can see are common parts. Are there not big gaps in this so called theory about "common ancestor"?Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

A reference material, A View of Life, says: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded in our planet." I understand that in that period, snails, sponges, starfish, tribolites (lobster like animals) and many other complex sea creatures appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: "some extinct tribolites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living anrthoropod posseses"

Hi Blue, Thanks, for the link. But, I observed that this "tree" is just an interpretation--an illustration (?).I dug further into the link. Tree of Life Turns Out to Have Complex Roots.That portion of article says, Another says... To my untrained mind, these scientists are in effect saying they are as confused as before. (I find comfort in the fact that I am not the only one confused. ) But, they won't stop speculating until.... WHEN? WHEN is the big question? Am I right?

The confusion continues... Now, you guys really got me confused!! My latest message also confirms that its not only me who is confused--even scientists. Refer to Message 21 the link provided by BlueJay...when explored further.If the Cambrian period indicates appearance of complex things --as if by explosion--then that doesn't prove "common ancestry". It is proof to the contrary--that life "exploded" and that supports.... what ?Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

I think this link could be helpful.Cambrian FossilsFirst, of all I respectfully invite IDs / Creationists/ etc to take a look at these pictures. They say a thousand words. Forget the "conjectures", "estimates"--made by scientists in this site which obviously espouses evolution.Guys, specially creationists who are more knowlegeable than me, please help. (I thought I was among friends here. It's turning out I'll be skewered dead ! I have questions in my mind--before I'm impaled to death-- when I see these pictures:1. Blue J accused me. First, I don't see any opponents. I only see friends trying to discuss. But, be that as it may, am I not allowed to use the word "speculate" while scientists may make "conjectures" and "estimates"--words found in this site if you drill down further?2. Will not anybody have the right to interpret these data opposite what these men of science do? For example, a creationist may say: 'hey these pictures prove that account in Genesis--"let blah...blah bring forth creeping souls/ creatures"? Are these not also fair interpretation of these data?3. Looking at these 16+ picture, and relating it to the so called "tree of life" which of these do you think is Blue Jay's "ancestor"--if it could be traced ( just an example, Blue )? Could it really be traced beyond reasonable doubt? What convincing evidence will an evolutionist-scientist give me ( I understand there are also creationist-scientists)? Whom should I believe?Note: For those who will answer # 3, please consider the explanations of parasominium about "ancestor" Yeah, if I understood it correctly, my third cousins and I may have 1 common ancestor. If we extend that to the case of BlueJ and Me--which common "grand pa" would we have among the 16+ life-forms shown in the above link?4.What if some of those fosills are found still alive today? Will supporters of evolution abandon their theory?Blue J, could you please answer my question #1, please?Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.Edited by Doubting Too, : Clarity about "ancestor"Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Could we use more neutral words like "came to being" instead of "evolve" and "created"? Just a suggestion, though?

As I dig deeper into this site--one espousing evolution--my confusion appears to have no end--and may be most scientists.Trilobita Trilobites So, Darwin is making speculation. Scientists aren't sure of the "cousins"...Tribulite lineage persisted some 300 million years..Question:
1. If Darwin can conjecture that the tribolite descended from one-precambrian ancestor, and if there is found today a living tribolite almost exactly the same as in the fossil--can I speculate that Darwin took us for a ride?

First, off I did not say "designer". On my Message 12I quoted partially the book, A view of life, Then I said: "I understand that in that period, snails, sponges, starfish, tribolites (lobster like animals) and many other complex sea creatures appeared."I found weird--or hard to understand-- your assertion of modern animal appearing on Cambrian period. It was Chopetera(?) who wrote "modern" which I just quoted. What do you mean by "modern" animal?Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Opponents are enemies. They can also be friends who happen to disagree. But, OK, fair enough. Let's not struggle with words. I can see your point. But, I just can't help thinking that somehow by the way the discussion goes the tree of life is related to the Cambrian explosion. But, OK, let's try to stick to Cambrian. What about the word "conjecture" in the link you gave that I drilled up? Sorry, I did not intend to personally offend you. Far from it. I was just commenting on the articles reporting that scientists make conjectures, etc... Any clear photographs to back-up your assertions...those in bold font? If by "evolve" you mean that organisms adapt (e.g. the peppered moth to a brown black moth --which by the way is still a moth--same kind), I would agree. But, if you assert that you and I evolved from a simple life form, e.g. a trilobite, I disagree. The Cambrian photos tell of numerous complex creatures appearing at the that time--that's why the term "explosion". The creation account partly says...'let there be crawling souls of all kinds...let them produce according to kind. Without any interpretation / re-interpretation, those pictures support creation rather than speculation--or guess if you want. Remember, let's stick to the Cambrian explosion--not to any other form of so called "evidence". By necessity, laymen like me have to rely on somebody, more preferably on unadulterated--and uninterpreted--evidence to form a judgment as to who among conflicting men of science are telling the truth. I disagree. I abhor the thought that those organisms are my ancestors. If so, then I may have been guilty of killing my relatives by making them as fishing baits.But, then again if by "descendant / ancestor" you mean that we have common parts like vertebrae, then I have no problem. However, the use of words "descendant" "ancestor" in this sense--of having 'homologous'(?) parts--, is kinda weird and gross to me. I swear as early as the 1960's I was making them fishing baits. Too bad I didn't have pictures of them. They are bad baits though. ( Was it because the fish recognize them as grandpa...while stupid me did not? )Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Or we can also speculate that...
1) tribolites have no ancestors because they just appeared all of a sudden--that's why the term "explosion".
2) Or some outer space being--and this one from a scientist in the article I followed speculated--created or planted them here.

Hi Larni,
Why cover your beauty with a mask...Your name's the same as the lady I once had a crush. Take off your mask, please. Now to your question: If by evolve means adaptation--like the peppered moth illustration on text book which by the way is just a moth adapting to an environment--then I have no problem with that.But if by evolve you mean a slow change, like this: 1) a bacteria as ancestor, 2) from bacteria to tribolite, 3) from tribolite to fish, 4) from fish to frog, 5) from frog to ape, 6) from ape to man. ( Just for illustrative purposes). I vehemently disagree. I don't see any evidence on the Cambrian explosion which is the topic of this thread.Besides, Larni, my crush, I would be guilty of eating many of my relatives. I ate pork, beef, and has tasted a monkey. ( It actually tastes good). No, no, no. I won't admit of eating my ancestors! Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

---

"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time"- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p95

Let me correct you. I did not say designer. My opinion is this: the fossils shown on the link Message 25--without any interpretation / speculation from scientists--appear to support creation. And, by creation, I mean that which is found in Genesis. Not exact wordings--'let the sea ( or was it land, or both?) bring forth creeping souls of all kinds...and let them reproduce according to kind'Here's that link again: Cambrian FossilsIf someone asks me what does "kind" mean--then my answer is there is no need to interpret a text /word in any of this situation:
a) the text is clear by common usage or experience,
b)the author did not give a clue as to what the word really means.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Sorry, but statements like this only confuses me more. First, there is a problem of relationship between tribolites and other arthopods...then they have "the same ancestors as those of the other arthropods?

Hi Larni, You have answered my question--you enchanting beauty. But, I only made some clarification on the word "evolve". The more I imagine your beauty, hidden behind those mask, the more I am NOT convinced that your ancestor is a tribolite, or something. You must have been an angel from above, so coy to reveal your beauty. I betcha if you reveal your beauty, hard core evolutionist like Blue Jay, will instantly become a creationist.

---

"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time"- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p95

If that is your opinion, well what's your basis? If its your question, I don't can't understand why you have to ask me this. I did not say it.My only assertion is that the fossil-pictures of Message 25, appears to back-up the creation account of Genesis.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

---

"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time"- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p95