Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion

I have paid attention. And I have learned.Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organised into colonies.

---

There was zilch except single celled organisms and multicellular algae for 2100mys. Now will you pay attention and learn something? What does atmospheric oxygen have to do with life at the bottom of the sea? You do realize that all Cambrian life were pretty much bottom dwellers and bottom dweller predators and plant life??? There was disolved oxygen in the seas. The atmospheric oxygen supposedly came from the seas. You don't read wiki very well...

quote:

---

However, the snowball episodes occurred a long time before the start of the Cambrian, and it is hard to see how so much diversity could have been caused by even a series of bottlenecks;[18] the cold periods may even have delayed the evolution of large size.[39]

---

Yes, there isn't a heck of alot. In fact it's almost non existent prior to 580mya. That's why it is called an explosion.But I would be interested in seeing some of your known evidence of transitional Cambrian hard shells, legs, digestion, waste removal, eyes etc. Not for people of the faith. It means faith my friend. It is the evidence of things hoped for the conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

But not from simply disolved oxygen, but from the photosynthesis of cyano bacteria & primitive algae

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Please note the Cambrian started 542 mya. That means that there was 38 million years (half the time back to the KT boundary) to get from simpler organisms to what we see early in the Cambrian.You quote says:

quote:

---

Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organised into colonies.

---

It does NOT support "zilch". It says 'most'. Perhaps there was nothing but that is not what the post says. And it is 38 million years (which is a rather long time) before the Cambrian starts. The oxygen content of the seas was also low. It has to be in equilibrium with the air. The point is that there wasn't oxygen for most of the vast expanse of time before. I didn't make myself clear. It is about this time that multicellular organisms started to appear not the life of the Cambrian. You asked about "why only simple life for so long". This is one thing that may have influenced it. The timing is just at the end of snowball earth so it may be connected. It is only conjecture that they are connected it may simply have been contingency or the level of oxygen in the air was finally adequate at the same time. Of course, it was a long time before the Cambrian. The build up from mostly single (all?) celled organisms began a long time before the Cambrian. It didn't just "poof" at the Cambrian. That is the point. You've now backed up to about 58 million years before the Cambrian.And, of course, the Cambrian itself lasted about 29 million years. (abe- 29 being the smallest range I could find. Other sources suggest 50 million years). That gives you a rather long drawn out "poof" doesn't it? It is plenty of time in fact. In other words it is a simple-minded god-of-the-gaps argument. This has been demonstrated to be poor theology over and over. So much so that sophisticated theologians and other believers know how foolish it is.This gap is already a lot more closed that it was a very few decades ago and it is also a lot more closed than you think it is. Your ignorance of facts doesn't mean they are not there.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

I haven't really avoided them, it's just that I know very little about invertebrates, so I can't really tell you how they evolved. My question still remains though, did god create all invertebrates? A lack of knowledge is NOT a bad thing. Refusing to acknowledge things pointed out to you IS. No I didn't know that. But I sure do now. See, I accept things I didn't know before to be true, yet when they are pointed out to me, I incorporate them in my knowledge. And yet you claim we can't be sure of their evolution? If we discovered MOST of them, shouldn't we be able to paint a pretty coherent picture of their evolution? Well, seems I was wrong there too. See what happens when people who don't know a lot about a particular subject go and claim things about it? They are proven wrong by the facts. Now, when they accept these facts and incorporate them into their knowledge, that's the really important part. And since they make up 98% of ALL life ever discovered, and MOST of them are found, I'm going to guess again and say they are also found before and after that. Ok. There ISN'T. I pointed you towards two picture of complex life found BEFORE the Cambrian, are you going to ignore these? And again, it was a period of 50 million years. As Nosyned pointed out, it took 50 million years for us to evolve from small shrew like creatures, would you call that an instant "poof" as well? *points once more to the picture in the wiki article* Yes, 50 million years really does mean instantaneous. That's because we have evidence of more complex lifeforms, from which they DID evolve.Oh, and by the way, thanks for not arguing against my list, it seems it's quite correct.

---

I hunt for the truth

"Most" here can be two different things. Most of those found or actual majority of what lived. You appear to be talking about two different "most"s.

Here is a definition of faith that may help this discussion:

​

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

​

So you are using faith in place of evidence, eh?And you are using faith to argue against evidence, eh?No problem! But just don't confuse it with science. It is religious apologetics: creation "science" if you will. Unfortunately for your argument, that is the exact opposite of science.And you are posting in the Science Forum. You really should use scientific evidence here, and leave faith for the other forums on this website.

---

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

Hmm, let's see Looking at this part as a whole, I'd say he's saying we discovered most of the 98%. I could be wrong however, if I am, AOKid (or Nosyned), just say so, and I will correct it.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hi, AlphaOmegakid (I'd be more diligent about using your full name if it weren't so frickin' long). I don’t know: I thought it was kind of clever, myself. But then, I’m just an ignorant evolutionist: what do I know, right? I've noticed. No, those are called "blue jays," not "Bluejays." Do you see the differences (there are two)?And, you do know what kids are taught about people who name themselves after God, right? ----- First of all, nobody here has claimed that complex, multicellular life has been around for 2.1 billion years, which makes this kind of a stupid argument for you to be making.Second, all that is required is that no ~600 to ~650 million-year-old fossiliferous rocks have surfaced (to where paleontologists can get at them). This actually isn’t a very improbable thing, you know. And, it certainly doesn’t in any way show that uniformitarianism is wrong. That you have to rely on this sort of evidence to make that point is really telling.Third, even if there were fossilogenic rocks 650 million years ago, I’m willing to stipulate that any Metazoa from that time period were soft-bodied, gelatinous things like ctenophores and Trichoplax, neither of which, to my knowledge, has ever appeard in any part of the fossil record. Maybe there were sponges with spicules, but I don’t know much about how well spicules fossilize, or how easy it is to distinguish a fossilized spicule from a grain of sand, so I’ll not comment more on that.Fourth, let’s say you’re right, that metazoan fossils from Doushantuo (~580 Mya) are the first Metazoa. I don’t even have a problem with that: the Doushantuo fossils are much less complex and much smaller than later Ediacaran, Maotianshan and Burgess shale organisms, which still fits nicely into the picture of evolutionary natural history.Seventh and lastly (bet you can’t name the reference), the “explosive” quality of the Cambrian “poof” is similar to the radiations that took place following each of the major extinction events. This suggests (to me, anyway) that the Cambrian “explosion” isn’t a particularly unusual event that requires a separate explanation from the theory of evolution by natural selection.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

I have never understood why creationists make such a big deal of the Cambrian "explosion."There is nothing there that supports their claims for creationism.

---

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

Hi, Omnipresentkid. Remember, I am an entomologist. Perhaps you would be able to explain to me why the insect fossil record is orders of magnitude more sparse than the vertebrate fossil record, despite the fact that insects were always undoubtedly more abundant than vertebrates (at least since the Carboniferous), and despite the fact that they have "hard parts."You know what? Don't bother. I can explain it for you:When a paleontologist says “hard parts,” they are referring to mineralized hard parts, because mineralized hard parts fossilize well. Arthropods generally have organic hard parts(trilobites apparently had mineralized parts, which is why their fossil record is so complete), and organic hard parts do not fossilize well. Therefore, a paleontologist does not regard arthropod exoskeletons as “hard parts.” Furthermore, nematologists insist that nematodes (roundworms) are far more abundant than arthropods (but, when you study worms, you desperately cling to whatever validation you can get, so I don’t believe them ), and nematodes are soft-bodied (except for some hooks on their mouths that might fossilize, though I’ve never heard of them in the fossil record). So, your statement that “most invertebrates have hard parts”is wrong.Sorry to inform you of this tiny fact.P.S. I think you would do well to research the term “lagersttte” (plural: “lagersttten”). Start here (as always, Wikipedia), and pay particular attention to the commonness of such fossil layers. These constitute the majority of the fossil record of soft-bodied invertebrates. Maybe then you can appreciate why evolution has a hard time assembling a natural history for infertebrates.----- NosyNed has already answered this point adequately, but why should I let him have all the fun?You’re intentionally playing dumb here. You know it doesn’t say “zilch” before 580 Mya. In fact, your “smorgasbord” at Doushantuo (presumably the 580 Mya you mentioned) actually consists of small organisms of intermediate complexity between Cambrian and pre-Doushantuo faunas (i.e. no eyes, no legs, no shells). Behold, the Wiki page about Vernanimalcula, which is the source of all the fuss about “580 Mya.” Notice the diagram of the animal, particularly its complete lack of anything that we would definitively call “eyes” or “legs.”Once again, paleontology has produced an intermediate between two levels of complexity, and creationists have somehow managed to completely fail to notice.Edited by Bluejay, : Added the bit about trilobite mineralized exoskeletons.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

You have avoided them. I asked specifically for them. Haven't you ever wondered why 98% of the fossil record is not used in the books as examples of evolution? Well it's because they aren't examples of evolution. Just like the earliest fossils of life stromatolites and cynobacteria from 3500 mya. We have these alive today. I guess we can add them to the living fossils list.Most cannot tell how invertebrates evolved from one kind to another, that's why they never use them as examples of evolution from the fossil record. Most cannot tell you how plants evolved from one kind to another. They also are not used, because the fossil record shows stasis more that evolution. That's the illusion of the evolutionary fossil record. The Cambrian explosion also requires a little magic to explain.And to answer your question, NO. God created different kinds of animals. Then he told them to multiply and fill the earth. He didn't create most of the animals. I personally am responsible for creating two humans. I have been corrected many times in these forums, and also have accepted the correction. However, no one yet has pointed to any fossil evidence in the period from about 3500 mya to 580 mya, that demonstrates evolution of the species. That's a fossil record of about 2900 mys that shows no evolution versus 580 mys that do "show" evolution. But the reality is even worse. During the 580 mys that do show evolution, it is only about 2% of the fossil record that they use to "show" this evolution. The other 98% of the fossil record doesn't really "show" evolution but rather stasis.That means the weight of evidence by the years doesn't suggest evolution of different kinds of creatures and the weight of evidence in fossil numbers doesn't suggest evolution either of different kind of creatures either. NEWS FLASH!!! I believe in evolution. The fossil record, as well as many other chains of evidence are conclusive in my mind that evolution happens. However, I do not believe that evidence can be extrapolated to argue that all species have evolved from one common ancestor. I believe there were many common ancestors.In the beginning there wasn't one life form that evolved into one tree of life. In the beginning, there was an orchard of trees of life. The fossil record represents this interpretation better. Especially the Cambrian explosion. If Toe were true, your guess would be right. However, before 580mya they aren't found. Ony single celled organisms and green algae. for 2900 mys there is no transitional evidence. I haven't ignored them. Have you not seen my mutiple posts now identifying 580mys and before? The pre Cambrian is 7/8ths of earth's history. You are focussing on one eigth for the ToE.During this period of 7/8ths of earth history according to the ToE, there was development of muticellular creatures. There was the development of multiple forms of sexual reproduction. There was development of nervous systems. There was development of digestive systems. There was development of defense systems. There was development of legs and propulsion systems. There was development of different forms of eyes and other sensory stytems. There was development of mutiple forms of respiration. All of this had to happen prior to 580 mya or in between 580 mys and 542 mys. But there isn't any fossil record of these developments in the 7/8ths of earth's history. This was Darwin's concern. And I think it still should be a concern. Do you really want me to answer this? That's why I call this the magic of millions of years. Caution says wiki....

quote:

---

Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, and evidence comes from biological and chemical signatures in rocks.

​

Dating the Cambrian
Accurate absolute radiometric dates for much of the Cambrian, obtained by detailed analysis of radioactive elements contained within rocks, have only rather recently become available, and for only a few regions.[19]

​

Relative dating (A was before B) is often sufficient for studying processes of evolution, but this too has been difficult, because of the problems involved in matching up rocks of the same age across different continents.[20]

​

Therefore dates or descriptions of sequences of events should be regarded with some caution until better data become available.

---

I think you have this backwards I assume you also have evidence that red herrings evolved form something else?

Hey Bluejay,It's time for the BB gun. Have you ever heard of Mollusca? I just use the generic term for our viewers..."sea shells" They happen to be the most popular world wide fossils. They are found even on the highest mountains!Many of these organisms have hard parts and they fossilize well. And of course you know that mineralization is not the only form of fossilization. Many arthropods are fossilized in amber. And they look just like modern insects.Here is an article that refutes your claim that insects don't fossilize well....http://www.ub.edu/dpep/meganeura/52inrocks.htm

quote:

---

The fossil record of insects contrary to what we think, is abundant and very diverse. If outcrops with fossil insects are rare compared to those with other kinds of invertebrates, especially marine ones, then they compensate by yielding large number of specimens and taxa. The fossil insects are often well preserved and articulated, allowing morphological comparisons with Recent forms, adoption of the same systematic system, and inclusion in phylogenetic studies.

---

So to completely destroy your argument, both arthropods and mulluscs comprise the vast majority of invertebrates. And they both often have hard parts. And they both often fossilize well. This is how we know that there were so many of them.And just in case you aren't aware of any nematode fossils, here are some from the Cambrian....http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossils/Nematoda-fossils.htmSo let me summarize by saying again that "most invertebrates have hard parts" and they fossilize well. And there is plenty of evidence that soft bodied organisms fossilize well also given the right kind of "flood" conditions with rapid burial..

Are you still harping on that global flood nonsense? With all of the evidence showing that it is a tribal myth, and never happened--indeed could not happen--as described?Even the early geologists, virtually all creationists trying to prove the flood, gave up by the early 1800s.Since then the case against the flood has only become stronger and more definitive.Face it: the "global" flood is a tribal myth.

---

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

You mean preserved, not fossilised.

No, I mean fossilized.