Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 116 of 137 (488353)
11-10-2008 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Huntard
11-07-2008 8:24 PM


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?
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.
A lack of knowledge is NOT a bad thing. Refusing to acknowledge things pointed out to you IS.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Do you really want me to answer this? That's why I call this the magic of millions of years.
Yes, 50 million years really does mean instantaneous.
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.
That's because we have evidence of more complex lifeforms, from which they DID evolve.
I think you have this backwards
Oh, and by the way, thanks for not arguing against my list, it seems it's quite correct.
I assume you also have evidence that red herrings evolved form something else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Huntard, posted 11-07-2008 8:24 PM Huntard has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 117 of 137 (488359)
11-10-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Blue Jay
11-08-2008 1:04 PM


Most Invertebrates have HARD parts.
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.
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.htm
So 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..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Blue Jay, posted 11-08-2008 1:04 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2008 11:33 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 119 by Larni, posted 11-10-2008 11:35 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 127 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2008 1:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 136 by bluescat48, posted 11-16-2008 5:33 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 120 of 137 (488364)
11-10-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Larni
11-10-2008 11:35 AM


Re: Most Invertebrates have HARD parts.
You mean preserved, not fossilised.
No, I mean fossilized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Larni, posted 11-10-2008 11:35 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Larni, posted 11-10-2008 11:58 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 121 of 137 (488365)
11-10-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Coyote
11-10-2008 11:33 AM


Re: Global flood again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2008 11:33 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2008 1:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 123 of 137 (488368)
11-10-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Larni
11-10-2008 11:58 AM


Re: Most Invertebrates have HARD parts.
So how does mineralisation occure inside amber?
See here:
Fossil - Wikipedia
mineralization and fossilization are not synonyms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Larni, posted 11-10-2008 11:58 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Larni, posted 11-10-2008 1:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 126 of 137 (488373)
11-10-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Coyote
11-10-2008 1:03 PM


Re: Global flood again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2008 1:03 PM Coyote has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 128 of 137 (488383)
11-10-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Blue Jay
11-08-2008 12:25 PM


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.
Nope. The argument of ToE as well as most of those in this forum is that the precursor ancestors to those very complex organisms in the Cambrian must have lived in the precambrian. These ancestors would definitely have been multicellular, and they also would be much more complext than green algae.
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.
It is indeed improbable. We have surface rocks much older that 600-650 mys old. Just google Neoproterozoic strata and you'll find quite a few articles on these layers.
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.
Well here is a Cambrian jelly fish for you...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/10/071030211210.htm
Here's some more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/10/071030211210.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/10/071030211210.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/10/071030211210.htm
An Australian Fossil Jelly-fish | Nature
404
And some of these are Cambrian fossils. So why not in the preCambrian?? The Cambrian is only 50mys or so, so why not in the 2900 mys before? And there are plenty of other soft bodied fossils.
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.
I wouldn't make any arguement on these fossils if I were you....
Just a moment...
quote:
Chen et al. (1) reported coelomate bilaterians from the 600-million-year-old Doushantuo phosphorites in southern China. Such a find might meet some common expectations of small, simple bilaterians emerging after the worldwide glaciations of the Neoproterozoic. The interpretation is not well founded, however, because it fails to take into full account taphonomy (changes in the organism after death) and diagenesis (changes in the sediment after deposition).
When taphonomy and diagenesis are taken into account, the evidence that these fossils preserve minute coelomate bilaterians disappears. The objects illustrated and described by Chen et al. (1) may well be eukaryotic microfossils, but their reconstructed morphology as bilaterians is an artifact generated by cavities being lined by diagenetic crusts. The appearance of the fossils now has little resemblance to that of the living organisms that generated them.
To paraphrase Theodosius Dobzhansky: Nothing in paleontology makes sense except in the light of taphonomy and diagenesis.
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.
This is a God of the Gaps argument. The god is nature and the religion is evolution. When there is no evidence (the empty 2900 mys) your faith in nauralism and evolution is filling in the gaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 11-08-2008 12:25 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 129 of 137 (488386)
11-10-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Blue Jay
11-10-2008 1:56 PM


Reading is the magic key, that takes you where you want to be?
And, in regards to your continual posting of a fish to Coyote, you brought up the Flood yourself---
AOkid, message #117 writes:
And there is plenty of evidence that soft bodied organisms fossilize well also given the right kind of "flood" conditions with rapid burial..
---so don’t accuse somebody else of “red herrings.” If we are interpreting your sentence wrongly, the correct manner of handling this is to tell us what you did mean by it, instead of just sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to support your arguments. And, if it truly is a red herring, the proper response is to not respond to it, so as to not clutter Bluejay’s most frequented thread at EvC with pictures of fish.
However, if you are, once again, unwilling to support what is obviously your Explanation for the Cambrian Explosion (i.e. the Flood), give me one reason why I should permit you to demand support for my explanation.
Right now, judging by your standards of debate, Coyote and I are perfectly within our rights to call all your attacks on ToE red herrings, and to respond to you with pictures of fish until you present evidence that your Explanation for the Cambrian Explosion is correct.
In my above quote, do you see any reference at all to the Bible? Do you see any reference at all to "global flood"?
Since you brought up the term Laggerstatten, why don't you look it up and study it and see how often scientists consider floods to have created these fossil finds. Especially the soft bodied finds!
I have not once brought up the Bible or Noah's flood in this thread. Yet for some unknown reason you and Coyote think you are able to read just about anything into what has been written.
It was a red herring, and I properly identified it as so.
And finally, just so you understand correctly, creationists do not believe that all fossils were created in the flood of Noah. We believe that there are many localized floods as well.
I have not used the argument that the Cambrian explosion is an example of Noahs flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2008 1:56 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2008 7:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 131 of 137 (488390)
11-10-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coyote
11-10-2008 2:46 PM


Re: The "flood" again
See Message 129
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2008 2:46 PM Coyote 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