Evolution is Not Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:

JM: Ok, you're wrong. The Cambrian fossils pose no special problem for evolution. You have to stay up with the literature. New discoveries keep eliminating small mysteries.

​

---

Really?By the way, I don't see why you think Cambrian fossils are "small mysteries."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Really?

​

By the way, I don't see why you think Cambrian fossils are "small mysteries."

---

What I don't see is why creationists think the Cambrian explosion supports their view. Sure, there are most of the modern phyla, but where are the modern forms? Where are the lobsters? Crabs? Oysters? And why are pretty much all of the modern phyla in marine form? Doesn't that tend to support the evolutionary view that life arose underwater before it moved to land?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Really?

​

By the way, I don't see why you think Cambrian fossils are "small mysteries."

---

JM: Well, the fossils themselves are no mystery. The small mystery deals with why they appear when they do in the geologic record. As I mentioned, I have no clue why creationists accept the 'Cambrian Explosion since it poses more of a problem for them.CheersJoe Meert

--If I might give cobra some support here. "What I don't see is why creationists think the Cambrian explosion supports their view."
--It is a supportive observation that is consistant with the Creationist explination."Sure, there are most of the modern phyla, but where are the modern forms? Where are the lobsters? Crabs? Oysters? And why are pretty much all of the modern phyla in marine form?"
--Speciation, for instance, your lobsters may be significant relatives to crawdad's or other species of crustateans."Doesn't that tend to support the evolutionary view that life arose underwater before it moved to land?"
--Whatever it may be, your explination is not in its lonesome (it is definantly not the only explination).------------------

Hi TC:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--If I might give cobra some support here.

​

"What I don't see is why creationists think the Cambrian explosion supports their view."
--It is a supportive observation that is consistant with the Creationist explination.

---

How? All we see in the early Cambrian is a relatively rapid radiation of basic body plans and a number of soft-bodied forms that no longer exist (Hallucinogenia comes to mind). As far as "sudden" creation goes, that only works if you consider 10 (or 30, depending on who you ask) million years "sudden". Also, creationism doesn't explain the Vendian fossils - many of which represent early forms of the body plans so explicit in the Cambrian. Sounds to me like the Cambrian represents additional data that is utterly inconsistent with creationism... After all, there are a number of other periods that show the same, relatively rapid radiation (such as the Triassic and Paleocene - both of which could be equally called "explosions", except they didn't have a publicist like SJ Gould).

quote:

---

"Sure, there are most of the modern phyla, but where are the modern forms? Where are the lobsters? Crabs? Oysters? And why are pretty much all of the modern phyla in marine form?"
--Speciation, for instance, your lobsters may be significant relatives to crawdad's or other species of crustateans.

---

Uhh, lobsters are crustaceans. And there are a number of phyla that didn't appear in the Cambrian (terrestrial plants, for one). You'll be hard pressed to convince anyone that the change from a lancelet-type critter to chimpanzee represents "variation in a kind" (chordate "kind"?). Again, the Cambrian doesn't support creationism.

quote:

---

"Doesn't that tend to support the evolutionary view that life arose underwater before it moved to land?"
--Whatever it may be, your explination is not in its lonesome (it is definantly not the only explination).

---

Hunh? This doesn't make any sense, TC. Please clarify what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--If I might give cobra some support here.

​

"Sure, there are most of the modern phyla, but where are the modern forms? Where are the lobsters? Crabs? Oysters? And why are pretty much all of the modern phyla in marine form?"
--Speciation, for instance, your lobsters may be significant relatives to crawdad's or other species of crustateans.

​

OK, so where are the Cambrian crawdads?

​

---

There is an excellant book called "Crucible of Creation" by Simon Conway. It has a number of very good examples concerning the Cambrian "Explosion" including some of the earlier forms of "animals" prior to this event including examples from Scandanavia, Australia and China. One of the reasons that the Cambrian fossils (whether you subscribe to S.J. Goulds view or S. Conways view) is that they fall quite well into the progression of differing forms in both time and geographical area expected of the descent with modification concept by Darwin. Almost all of the specific species and maybe some of speculative phyla are now extinct and there are no examples of the "higher" phyla present either in the Burgass shale or in the other contemporaneous geographical samples. This does not fit with a single creation model but does fit Darwins theory of Descent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
This does not fit with a single creation model but does fit Darwins theory of Descent.

---

JM: More importantly, the creationists are in a pickle if they claim that it IS evidence of sudden creation. Remember, they assign fossils to the flood, so this can't be evidence of both sudden creation and sudden death!CheersJoe Meert

Yep, the biggest problem with the Noachian flood (other than the fact that it did not occur) is the sorting of the fossils. Actually that is in error, the biggest problem (again, ditto) is where did the water come from and go, but that is a different debate.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Remember, they assign fossils to the flood, so this can't be evidence of both sudden creation and sudden death!

---

Well it could be evidence of a cosmic d'oh! on behalf of the creator?He does change his mind according to the Bible, which is admittedly a strange thing for an eternal omniscient creator to do, but that's the unknowable mystery of it all, isn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

---

Well it could be evidence of a cosmic d'oh! on behalf of the creator?
[/B][/QUOTE]Actually the problem is more in the sorting of the fossils, ie reality of how they have been depostited which is in line with evolution and descent with modification vs how they would be sorted in a Noachian flood which is not observed.

KING PENGUIN:
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko KusanagiBoy, that says it all!

"Yep, the biggest problem with the Noachian flood (other than the fact that it did not occur) is the sorting of the fossils. Actually that is in error, the biggest problem (again, ditto) is where did the water come from and go, but that is a different debate."
--Oh G whiz, well your new here so I won't get skeptical about the skeptics. The water is in the oceans silly. And it came from polar glacier masses. Just had to comment on that one, you didn't really think you would just 'get away with' that assertion did you? ------------------

"JM: More importantly, the creationists are in a pickle if they claim that it IS evidence of sudden creation. Remember, they assign fossils to the flood, so this can't be evidence of both sudden creation and sudden death!"
--Thats right!------------------

"OK, so where are the Cambrian crawdads?"
--Speciation, they may not have existed at the time of the formation of the geo-column.------------------