Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 53 of 137 (486838)
10-24-2008 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 8:35 PM


Re: I'm Out Thanks Guys
Hi Doubting Too, guess I'll have to "tempt"you in this thread as well.
Dpubting Too writes:
Thanks to you who enlightened me here. Special thanks to Blue Jay who provided the link. Got a heavy work load next week.
My conclusion is this: that those photos of fossils in the Cambrian period Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion (Message 25), appear to back-up the creation account on Genesis and not evolution .
And your conclusion would be wrong, could you please go into detail as to WHY you came to this conclusion? I would appreciate it.
I'm no expert. I only relied on what I saw.
Exactly, and you've only see a VERY VERY small portion of it. Do you think you can draw conclusions from very very small parts of knowledge?
Further, please refer to my signature below-- if you want additional "expert witnesse" on why such beautiful creature as Larni could not be a product of evolution.
Alright, let's take a look, shall we:
"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
A quotemine, how nice, could you please back it up with some evidence?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 8:35 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 71 of 137 (487924)
11-06-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid
11-06-2008 3:15 PM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
AlphaOmegakid writes:
I think you have done quite well. You are a skeptik.
I think everyone should be.
You look at pictures of organisms with great complexity which suddenly appear in the Cambrian, and then you simply ask, where did these come from?
Yes, I did the same.
That sounds reasonable to me.
Of course it's reasonable, always ask questions. But don't go "NUH-UH" when you don't like the answer.
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
In the Cambrian "Poof" (it's a better word than "explosion")
No it isn't.
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
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.
In my opinion, because of the circular reasoning within the geological column
What circular reasoning?
scientists are faced with the evidence of the Cambrian "poof".
Yes, and, unlike your claim, they don't have a problem with it.
It exists, and it is contrary evidence to the OOS theory.
The what theory?
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.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-06-2008 3:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 11:28 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 95 of 137 (488053)
11-07-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 11:28 AM


I thought that was what skeptiks did??
No, sceptics will question the answer, but when all evidence points to something being true, they don't go "I'm still going to say it isn't". That's being stupid, not being a sceptic.
There was? You had better read you article a little better. The Cambrian begins at 545 mya (all dates are evo time).
Evo time? Is that like CET but better? Seriously, I don't know why I even bother....EVO TIME? *sigh*.
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.
Which is WAY before the Cambrian.
hat means 1800mys with nothing but an "evolving planet".
Since planets are not alive, they do not evolve.
The first multicellular "complex" organisms appear about 580mya (just before the Cambrian.)
Yes, these are the ancestors to the ones appearing in the Cambrian.
That means we have nothing but single celled organisms and simple multicellular algaes that were fossilized between 2700mya and 580mya.
Yes, and again, those are the ancestors to the organisms in the Cambrian.
That's 2100mys of simple life with no evidence of evolution.
No evolution? What the hell did you think all those organisms did? They sat there NOT evolving? You do know what evolution is, don't you? In case you forgot, it's the change of hereditary traits in a population over time. You are telling me the genes of all the animals that lived before the Cambrian remained PERFECTLY THE SAME generation after generation?
Sure it is. It's the magic of millions of years.
And as we all know, millions of years actually means "in an instant"
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.
Yes, as pointed out earlier, 50 million years actually means in an instant.
All of them appearing by the early Cambrian.
Yes, this still covers a period of 50 million years. Again, that's not a "poof".
That's a "puntuated evolutionary poof".
A what? ..... Never mind.....
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.
You didn't notice the picture in the "Precambrian Life" part? There's two there that I'd say are fossils of things that lived before the Cambrian. You disagree?
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.
Pfff, seems like I actually have to put in some work here. Alrgiht, here goes. First of all, the fossil record is but one avenue of research into evolutionary biology. But I suppose I'll make a list for you, not of invertebrates, but it's still quite impressive. (to other readers, sorry, it will be rather long)
First, invertebrate to vertebrate:
1) Pikaia
2) Yunannozoon
3) Haikouella
4) Conodonts
5) Placoderms (these had jaws)
Right, in the fish department now:
6) Cheirolepis
7) Osteolepis (early lobe finned fish, and showing an amfidian like skull)
8) Eusthenopteron (Amfibian skull, and bane and muscle attachments of fins similar as those found in early tetrapod limbs)
9) Panderichthys (very tetrapod like. Has flattened body as well as foot like fins)
10) Acanthostega (fin to foot transition almost complete)
Early tetrapod time!:
11) Tiktaalik (Fins posses wrist and finger bones, and has a neck and both lungs and gills)
12) Ichthyostega (Shoulder and pelvis very tetrapod like and has a very similar rib cage to tetrapods)
Early land amphibians: (By now I would say I can quit, but I'll just keep going)
13) Pteroplax (skull bone patterns similar to Ichthyostega and remnants of gills can be found at the neck)
14) Proterogyrinus (Has amphibian like skull, but limbs and spine have reptilian characteristics)
15) Solenodonsaurus (No more lateral line on the head)
16) Hylonomus &
17) Paleothyris (both small lizard like creatures that still have an amphibian like skull)
Argh! It's the reptilians!:
18) Pelycosaurs (synapsids with differentiated teeth)
19) Therapsids (mamal like reptiles with complex jaws and teeth. Legs vertically attached under their bodies)
20) Proto mamals (whole bunch of 'em, in these we see further development of the skull)
Right, mamal department!:
21) Early placentals (small, rodent like organisms)
22) Phenacolemur Jepseni &
23) Teilhardina Asiatica (Both early primates, whose skulls don't really look like primates, but the teeth are getting there)
24) Amphipitecus &
25) Pondaungia Cotteri (from these fossils we can see the brain size increasing, while the nose was getting shorter)
Ape country!:
26) Propliopithecus Haeckell (teeth became a defining characteristic of apes)
27) Aegyptopithicus Zeuxis (Has larger and "rounder" brain)
28) Proconsul (characteristics of both apes and monkeys, also, sexual dimorphism pops up)
29) Kenyapithecus (descendant from Proconsul, and ancestor to both man and the great apes)
30) Australopithecus Afarensis (ape like, but bipedal)
31) Australopithecus Africanus (larger brain, teeth similar to those found in the "homo" genus)
Which is the next stage (and the final one) Humans!:
32) Homo Habilis (sits on the Australopitecine-Homo boundary. Has larger brain, and used tools)
33) Homo Erectus (Larger brain again, an used fire)
34) Homo Sapiens (Brain between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens Sapiens, also much finer teeth then predecessor)
35) Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Nice list eh? yes, those weren't invertebrates. I can give you a clue why there are little fossils of them though. Here goes: "NO HARD PARTS". So, are you saying god made all invertebrates?
The use of index fossils.
Ah yes of course, and because the method used by scientists is completely wrong, they had NO success in predicting where Tiktaalik would be and they haven't found it yet....Oh wait, they have. Sorry, try again.
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....
I didn't say they weren't arguing about it, I said they had no problem with it regarding evolution.
Uh, That's the definition of a skeptic.
As pointed out in the very first paragraph, it isn't.

I hunt for the truth

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 104 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 3:55 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 109 of 137 (488123)
11-07-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid
11-07-2008 3:55 PM


Yes most evos avoid the invertebrates.
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?
I wonder if NosyNed is going to admonish you for your complete lack of knowledge of invertebrates.
A lack of knowledge is NOT a bad thing. Refusing to acknowledge things pointed out to you IS.
You evidently don't know that invertebrates make up 98% of all known species that have been identified.
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.
You know how we discovered most of them? They fossilized. Yes, both soft bodied invertebrates and hard bodied invertebrates.
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?
Most invertebrates have HARD PARTS. Sorry to inform you of this TINY fact.
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.
Many are found in the Cambrian explosion.
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.
Both soft bodied fossils and hard bodied fossils.
Ok.
If the Cambrian is full of these diverse phyla and lifeforms, then why zilch before 580mya?
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?
Why nothing but single celled organisms and multicelled algae?
*points once more to the picture in the wiki article*
Then "Poof" a smorgasborg of diverse complex organisms.
Yes, 50 million years really does mean instantaneous.
Organisms with eyes, digestive systems, nervous systems, breathing systems, legs, shells, yet we have no evidence of how these systems evolved from algae and single cells prior to 580mya.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 3:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2008 8:32 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 116 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 10:03 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 112 of 137 (488127)
11-07-2008 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by NosyNed
11-07-2008 8:32 PM


Re: Possible misreading
Hmm, let's see
AlphaOmegakid writes:
You evidently don't know that invertebrates make up 98% of all known species that have been identified. You know how we discovered most of them? They fossilized.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 11-07-2008 8:32 PM NosyNed 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