|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2724 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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"???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Hello AOK,
AOK writes: 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. 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. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
So is "Big Bang".... I agree. The BB is senseless...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So is "Big Bang"....
I agree. The BB is senseless...
Yeah, the phrase is... The theory, otoh, is solid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
The theory, otoh, is solid. I personally think it's rather "gaseous".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3687 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
AOK writes: 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. And how does this fit with uniformitarianism? Edited by rueh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024