Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 0/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion
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

  
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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 137 (488059)
11-07-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 1:59 PM


Re: New Topic?
Well maybe with your superior "wisdom" on the topic at hand you can offer a difinitive explanation with evidenc as to why the fossil record is virtually empty of evolutionary evidence for 2100 mys.
The organisms didn't have much of the hard parts that lead to a lot of fossilization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 1:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 2:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 137 (488076)
11-07-2008 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 2:26 PM


Re: New Topic?
That explains the gazillions of soft bodied fossils that do exist in Cambrian and later layers. But none in between 2700mya and 580mya.
I think you're mistaken on the numbers of fossils in the different eras...
Why is that?
Here's some quotes from the wiki page on Cambrian Explosion that might help you conseptualize this:
quote:
The Cambrian fossil record includes an unusually high number of lagersttten, which preserve soft tissues.
quote:
Stromatolites, stubby pillars built by colonies of microorganisms, are a major constituent of the fossil record from about 2,700 million years ago, but their abundance and diversity declined steeply after about 1,250 million years ago. This decline has been attributed to disruption by grazing and burrowing animals.
quote:
Precambrian marine diversity was dominated by small fossils known as acritarchs. This term describes almost any small organic walled fossil - from the egg cases of small metazoans to resting cysts of many different kinds of green algae. After appearing around 2,000 million years ago, acritarchs underwent a boom around 1,000 million years ago, increasing in abundance, diversity, size, complexity of shape and especially size and number of spines.
quote:
The earliest Cambrian trilobite fossils are about 530 million years old, but the class was already quite diverse and worldwide, suggesting that they had been around for quite some time.
quote:
However, evidence of Precambrian metazoa is gradually accumulating. If the Ediacaran Kimberella was a mollusc-like protostome (one of the two main groups of coelomates),[55][17] the protostome and deuterostome lineages must have split significantly before 550 million years ago (deuterostomes are the other main group of coelomates).[73] Even if it is not a protostome, it is widely accepted as a bilaterian.[73][59] Since fossils of rather modern-looking Cnidarians (jellyfish-like organisms) have been found in the Doushantuo lagersttte, the Cnidarian and bilaterian lineages must have diverged well over 580 million years ago.
quote:
The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.4
There is little doubt that disparity - that is, the range of different organism "designs" or "ways of life" - rose sharply in the early Cambrian.[5] However recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing.[75] In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation.[5]
The diversity of many Cambrian assemblages is similar to today's.
quote:
Despite the evidence that moderately complex animals (triploblastic bilaterians) existed before and possibly long before the start of the Cambrian, it seems that the pace of evolution was exceptionally fast in the early Cambrian. Possible explanations for this fall into three broad categories: environmental, developmental, and ecological changes. Any explanation must explain the timing and magnitude of the explosion. It is also possible that the "explosion" requires no special explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 2:26 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