Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 76 of 137 (487978)
11-07-2008 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Jason777
10-28-2008 3:28 PM


A pich of salt
It seems that the good Dr...er no that's not right:
It seems that the George Washington University graduate....er no that's not right, either.
It seems the high school graduate, 'Vedic archeologist' and regular talk radio conspiracy theory talk show guest is a wack job.
Why not take a look at a review of 'Forbidden Archeology'. Here we see how there is a seeming bias in the selection of evidence and the importance given to the evidence as well as the implications for obvious creationist a proiri assumptions.
One thing that made me laugh was the times evidence went 'missing' after conclusions were drawn.
Creationism: The Hindu View
Edited by Larni, : Spellink

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Jason777, posted 10-28-2008 3:28 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 77 of 137 (487997)
11-07-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Blue Jay
11-07-2008 1:09 AM


Aokidspeak??
The Kid!
No, the AlphaOmegakid! And yes, I am ubiquitous.
Hi Bluejay,
You do know that kids are taught that Bluejay's are one of the meanest birds around. Any kid with a BB gun knows they make great target practice. Just a little natural selection, eh?
Actually, what we see in the Cambrian “Poof” is about half a dozen rock formations (naturally representing about half a dozen dates/date ranges), bearing thousands of fossils, and virtually no fossils of any kind whatsoever interspersed between these rock formations. You can interpret this as sudden creation events, if you’d like, but it’s far more parsimonious to interpret them as a few rocks suitable for fossilization, and many rocks unsuitable for fossilization (this is actually a much better interpretation for both evolutionary and creationary natural history).
Let me see if I understand you correctly....
We have about 2100 Mys since the signs first cellular life in evo time to semi complex life (2700Mya for first life and about 580 Mya for the fist signs of semi complex life in rounded years.) So logically that would mean that we have 2100 million years of global erosion and sedimentary processes that wouldn't be sufficient to statistically bury some fossils, while we have 580 million years worth of sedimentary processes in the works that provide tons and tons of fossilized life. It seems to me that the uniformitarian principle is not quite so uniform.
To put this in a better perspective, we have about 700 mys for life to form from chemicals through chemical evolution. We have 580 mys for about 99.9999% of all known life forms to form. And we have about 2100 mys in between when nothing much fossil wise happened??? Isn't this solid evidence that uniformitarian principles don't jive with the evidence?
You will also have to explain why these different sets of fossils fit so darn well into the evolutionary picture of radiation and selection.
Why would I have to explain something that I haven't seen evidence for? Please don't reply to this as it would derail the thread...
But, whatever you do, you must consider the implications of your theory before you taut it as logical based on the frailties of your admittedly weak opponents: your opponents, well aware of their own frailties, have already considered the implications of their side, and have already found the solution (it wasn’t hard for us).
My opponents live in a paradigm of naturalism. They don't consider any possibilities outside of that box. I agree with you 100% that ToE is the best naturalistic theory to explain all the evidence. I also agree with Doubting Too that supernatural creation is the best explanation from a paradigm that allows the supernatural. I don't limit myself and my mind to naturalistic explanations.
Thus, the evolutionary natural history model doesn’t have anything else to explain,
I just gave one example for you. Please explain why 2100 mys worth of sedimentary processes of erosion, metamorphosis, ice ages, catastrophism etc. did not leave any trace of complex life evolution.
{AbE: For Huntard: "OOS" is "Origin of Species"---it's AOkidspeak for "ToE/Abiogenesis," which, to him, are one and the same.}
Nope. You are correct that OOS is Origin of the species. I don't think this has anything to do with Abiogenesis. Neither do any scientists.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 11-07-2008 1:09 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by rueh, posted 11-07-2008 12:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 11-08-2008 12:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 78 of 137 (488009)
11-07-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Huntard
11-06-2008 3:38 PM


Of course it's reasonable, always ask questions. But don't go "NUH-UH" when you don't like the answer.
I thought that was what skeptiks did??
In the precambrian all we have is single celled organisms and multicelled organisms in which the cells are the same.
WRONG. There were animals there that were more complex. See: Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
There was? You had better read you article a little better. The Cambrian begins at 545 mya (all dates are evo time). The earth is 4500 my old. That means that the preCambrian is 3955 mys of rock layers. The first fossilized signs of life appeared about 2700mya. That means 1800mys with nothing but an "evolving planet". The first multicellular "complex" organisms appear about 580mya (just before the Cambrian.) That means we have nothing but single celled organisms and simple multicellular algaes that were fossilized between 2700mya and 580mya. That's 2100mys of simple life with no evidence of evolution.
In the Cambrian "Poof" (it's a better word than "explosion")
No it isn't.
Sure it is. It's the magic of millions of years. We can have 2100 million years of no evidence of evolution and then all of a sudden "poof" we magically have about a 50 my period when all the phyla of organisms with great complexity appearin the fossil record. All of them appearing by the early Cambrian. That's a "puntuated evolutionary poof".
we see from the fossil record a vast array of animals with great multicellular complexity with no apparent ancestors in the fossil record.
WRONG. Again, see: Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
Then I ask you to back this up with evidence. The fossil record is virtually empty for roughly 2100 mys. Please show us the Pre Cambrian transitionals.
The Cambrian fossils are the greatest evidence against evolution of the species.
No, they're not. In fact, we can track evolution of the species very well from the Cambrian onward.
We do? Maybe you can specualate about the 2% of vertebrate fossils found, but show me the evolutionary tract of the 98% of fossils which are plants and invertebrates. Pick one and show me how well you can track it.
What circular reasoning?
The use of index fossils.
scientists are faced with the evidence of the Cambrian "poof".
Yes, and, unlike your claim, they don't have a problem with it.
And what planet do you live on? The Cambrian explosion is by no means a settled issue in science. Did you read your own article? Here are just a few quotes from your article....
quote:
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.
Your skeptic mind is very reasonable.
No, it isn't. Every time we point something out he doesn't like he goes "NUH-UH" and carries on.
Uh, That's the definition of a skeptic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Huntard, posted 11-06-2008 3:38 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2008 12:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 95 by Huntard, posted 11-07-2008 1:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 79 of 137 (488010)
11-07-2008 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by bluescat48
11-06-2008 8:22 PM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
No it isn't and the term explosion is senseless too unless you consider a "poof" or "explosion" to be 15+ million years.
So you are saying that the well known, well documented, well defined, scientific term, "Cambrian Explosion", is senseless? That would mean that thousands of peer reviewed papers would be "senseless"???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by bluescat48, posted 11-06-2008 8:22 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2008 11:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 137 (488013)
11-07-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 11:33 AM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
So you are saying that the well known, well documented, well defined, scientific term, "Cambrian Explosion", is senseless?
So is "Big Bang"....
That would mean that thousands of peer reviewed papers would be "senseless"???
Containing a senseless phrase that is commonly used doesn't make the whole paper senseless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 11:33 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 12:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 81 of 137 (488020)
11-07-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 10:39 AM


Re: Aokidspeak??
Hello AOK,
AOK writes:
So logically that would mean that we have 2100 million years of global erosion and sedimentary processes that wouldn't be sufficient to statistically bury some fossils, while we have 580 million years worth of sedimentary processes in the works that provide tons and tons of fossilized life.
Conversely however, it also means you have 2.1Byrs for fossils to be destroyed. Those global erosion and depository processes are just as adapt at destroying the fossil record as they are for perserving it.
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 10:39 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 12:36 PM rueh has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 82 of 137 (488022)
11-07-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 11:28 AM


Index fossils
What circular reasoning?
The use of index fossils.
You've been into the creationist kool-aid again.
There is nothing wrong with the use of index fossils, in spite of what the creationist websites and literature imply.
If you look at an early postcard of a street scene, you can identify the approximate year by the style of the vehicles. That is using "index cars" in the same way index fossils are used.
You know the date for the various car styles already, so you can apply that knowledge to an unknown scene and infer a date.
If particular fossils which form a unique grouping are dated in one area, then the age of that particular grouping can be inferred in other areas where it is found.
The more accurately a particular fossil is dated, the more reliable it is as an index fossil. This is particularly true if it has a wide distribution and a narrow time span.
A great index, or "time stratigraphic marker" is the old pull tab from soda and been cans. Those pull tabs are everywhere, were only used for a short time, and being aluminum are very durable. These will be an important "index fossil" for historical archaeologists.
So where is the circular reasoning in all of this?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 11:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 12:38 PM Coyote has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 83 of 137 (488029)
11-07-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by rueh
11-07-2008 12:06 PM


Re: Aokidspeak??
Conversely however, it also means you have 2.1Byrs for fossils to be destroyed. Those global erosion and depository processes are just as adapt at destroying the fossil record as they are for perserving it.
And how does this fit with uniformitarianism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by rueh, posted 11-07-2008 12:06 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by rueh, posted 11-07-2008 12:52 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 84 of 137 (488030)
11-07-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coyote
11-07-2008 12:09 PM


Re: Index fossils
So where is the circular reasoning in all of this?
The rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks. That seems a litle circular to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2008 12:09 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2008 1:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 85 of 137 (488031)
11-07-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
11-07-2008 11:40 AM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
So is "Big Bang"....
I agree. The BB is senseless...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2008 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2008 12:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 137 (488035)
11-07-2008 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 12:39 PM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
So is "Big Bang"....
I agree. The BB is senseless...
Yeah, the phrase is...
The theory, otoh, is solid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 12:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 87 of 137 (488036)
11-07-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by New Cat's Eye
11-07-2008 12:42 PM


The theory, otoh, is solid.
I personally think it's rather "gaseous".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2008 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 88 of 137 (488039)
11-07-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 12:36 PM


Re: Aokidspeak??
AOK writes:
And how does this fit with uniformitarianism?
Don't change the goal posts now AOK. You wanted a explanation for why less fossils are perserved in the precambrian than other epochs. Well that is one possible solution to the delema. If more fossils are destroyed each year than the farther back you go the less fossils you should find. This process does not have to be uniform throughout the geological column, just because of the sheer number of variables to preserve fossils and keep them preserved.
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 12:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 1:13 PM rueh has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 89 of 137 (488042)
11-07-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 12:38 PM


Re: Index fossils
So where is the circular reasoning in all of this?
The rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks. That seems a litle circular to me.
Wrong. That is a standard creationist talking point, and it is wrong. It shows a deliberate misunderstanding of how these things work.
Study the matter a little more closely, avoiding the creationist websites, and perhaps with reference to the examples I gave above. Then get back to me.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 12:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 1:16 PM Coyote has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 90 of 137 (488043)
11-07-2008 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by rueh
11-07-2008 12:52 PM


Re: Aokidspeak??
Don't change the goal posts now AOK. You wanted a explanation for why less fossils are perserved in the precambrian than other epochs. Well that is one possible solution to the delema. If more fossils are destroyed each year than the farther back you go the less fossils you should find. This process does not have to be uniform throughout the geological column, just because of the sheer number of variables to preserve fossils and keep them preserved.
It's not me changing the goal post it is you. You're suggestion, even though quite logical, is part of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by rueh, posted 11-07-2008 12:52 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Coragyps, posted 11-07-2008 1:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 103 by rueh, posted 11-07-2008 3:51 PM AlphaOmegakid 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