|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
I think this link could be helpful. Cambrian Fossils First, of all I respectfully invite IDs / Creationists/ etc to take a look at these pictures. They say a thousand words. Forget the "conjectures", "estimates"--made by scientists in this site which obviously espouses evolution. Guys, specially creationists who are more knowlegeable than me, please help. Hi Doubting Too, I think you have done quite well. You are a skeptik. 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? That sounds reasonable to me. In the precambrian all we have is single celled organisms and multicelled organisms in which the cells are the same. In the Cambrian "Poof" (it's a better word than "explosion") we see from the fossil record a vast array of animals with great multicellular complexity with no apparent ancestors in the fossil record. The Cambrian fossils are the greatest evidence against evolution of the species. In my opinion, because of the circular reasoning within the geological column, scientists are faced with the evidence of the Cambrian "poof". It exists, and it is contrary evidence to the OOS theory. Your skeptic mind is very reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
The Kid! No, the AlphaOmegakid! And yes, I am ubiquitous. Hi Bluejay, You do know that kids are taught that Bluejay's are one of the meanest birds around. Any kid with a BB gun knows they make great target practice. Just a little natural selection, eh?
Actually, what we see in the Cambrian “Poof” is about half a dozen rock formations (naturally representing about half a dozen dates/date ranges), bearing thousands of fossils, and virtually no fossils of any kind whatsoever interspersed between these rock formations. You can interpret this as sudden creation events, if you’d like, but it’s far more parsimonious to interpret them as a few rocks suitable for fossilization, and many rocks unsuitable for fossilization (this is actually a much better interpretation for both evolutionary and creationary natural history). Let me see if I understand you correctly.... We have about 2100 Mys since the signs first cellular life in evo time to semi complex life (2700Mya for first life and about 580 Mya for the fist signs of semi complex life in rounded years.) So logically that would mean that we have 2100 million years of global erosion and sedimentary processes that wouldn't be sufficient to statistically bury some fossils, while we have 580 million years worth of sedimentary processes in the works that provide tons and tons of fossilized life. It seems to me that the uniformitarian principle is not quite so uniform. To put this in a better perspective, we have about 700 mys for life to form from chemicals through chemical evolution. We have 580 mys for about 99.9999% of all known life forms to form. And we have about 2100 mys in between when nothing much fossil wise happened??? Isn't this solid evidence that uniformitarian principles don't jive with the evidence?
You will also have to explain why these different sets of fossils fit so darn well into the evolutionary picture of radiation and selection. Why would I have to explain something that I haven't seen evidence for? Please don't reply to this as it would derail the thread...
But, whatever you do, you must consider the implications of your theory before you taut it as logical based on the frailties of your admittedly weak opponents: your opponents, well aware of their own frailties, have already considered the implications of their side, and have already found the solution (it wasn’t hard for us). My opponents live in a paradigm of naturalism. They don't consider any possibilities outside of that box. I agree with you 100% that ToE is the best naturalistic theory to explain all the evidence. I also agree with Doubting Too that supernatural creation is the best explanation from a paradigm that allows the supernatural. I don't limit myself and my mind to naturalistic explanations.
Thus, the evolutionary natural history model doesn’t have anything else to explain, I just gave one example for you. Please explain why 2100 mys worth of sedimentary processes of erosion, metamorphosis, ice ages, catastrophism etc. did not leave any trace of complex life evolution.
{AbE: For Huntard: "OOS" is "Origin of Species"---it's AOkidspeak for "ToE/Abiogenesis," which, to him, are one and the same.} Nope. You are correct that OOS is Origin of the species. I don't think this has anything to do with Abiogenesis. Neither do any scientists. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Of course it's reasonable, always ask questions. But don't go "NUH-UH" when you don't like the answer. I thought that was what skeptiks did??
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 There was? You had better read you article a little better. The Cambrian begins at 545 mya (all dates are evo time). 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. That means 1800mys with nothing but an "evolving planet". The first multicellular "complex" organisms appear about 580mya (just before the Cambrian.) That means we have nothing but single celled organisms and simple multicellular algaes that were fossilized between 2700mya and 580mya. That's 2100mys of simple life with no evidence of evolution.
In the Cambrian "Poof" (it's a better word than "explosion")
No it isn't. Sure it is. It's the magic of millions of years. 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. All of them appearing by the early Cambrian. That's a "puntuated evolutionary poof".
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 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.
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. 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.
What circular reasoning? The use of index fossils.
scientists are faced with the evidence of the Cambrian "poof".
Yes, and, unlike your claim, they don't have a problem with it. 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....
quote: 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. Uh, That's the definition of a skeptic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
No it isn't and the term explosion is senseless too unless you consider a "poof" or "explosion" to be 15+ million years. So you are saying that the well known, well documented, well defined, scientific term, "Cambrian Explosion", is senseless? That would mean that thousands of peer reviewed papers would be "senseless"???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Conversely however, it also means you have 2.1Byrs for fossils to be destroyed. Those global erosion and depository processes are just as adapt at destroying the fossil record as they are for perserving it. And how does this fit with uniformitarianism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
So where is the circular reasoning in all of this? The rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks. That seems a litle circular to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
So is "Big Bang".... I agree. The BB is senseless...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
The theory, otoh, is solid. I personally think it's rather "gaseous".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Don't change the goal posts now AOK. You wanted a explanation for why less fossils are perserved in the precambrian than other epochs. Well that is one possible solution to the delema. If more fossils are destroyed each year than the farther back you go the less fossils you should find. This process does not have to be uniform throughout the geological column, just because of the sheer number of variables to preserve fossils and keep them preserved. It's not me changing the goal post it is you. You're suggestion, even though quite logical, is part of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Wrong. That is a standard creationist talking point, and it is wrong. It shows a deliberate misunderstanding of how these things work. I know very well how these things work. That doesn't mean that circular reasoning is not present. It clearly is, but it's a red herring to this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
You also don't know what uniformatarianism is either. It is not a good idea to assert so strongly about areas you know so little about. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
The organisms didn't have much of the hard parts that lead to a lot of fossilization. Yeah right! That explains the gazillions of soft bodied fossils that do exist in Cambrian and later layers. But none in between 2700mya and 580mya. Why is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Why don't you read and discuss what you've already been told? Unless you can show otherwise, I have been discussing with multiple people, and I have answered (for the most part given the time) all of their replies. But you have criticized me, yet you offer no substance. You've done this before in other forums. I asked a simple question for someone who is a knowledgeable evolutionist. You have offerred no answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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? Yes most evos avoid the invertebrates. I wonder if NosyNed is going to admonish you for your complete lack of knowledge of invertebrates. 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. Yes, both soft bodied invertebrates and hard bodied invertebrates. Most invertebrates have HARD PARTS. Sorry to inform you of this TINY fact. Many are found in the Cambrian explosion. Both soft bodied fossils and hard bodied fossils. If the Cambrian is full of these diverse phyla and lifeforms, then why zilch before 580mya? Why nothing but single celled organisms and multicelled algae? Then "Poof" a smorgasborg of diverse complex organisms. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
then why zilch before 580mya?
There is NOT zilch! You have to pay attention when you are told something. I have paid attention. And I have learned. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
quote: There was zilch except single celled organisms and multicellular algae for 2100mys. Now will you pay attention and learn something?
Why nothing but single celled organisms and multicelled algae? For a couple of billion years there was no oxygen in the air. That makes multicellular organisms difficult. Then it took most of another couple of billion to reach about 10 %. Strangely it was just about this that muliticellular life appeared. 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.
In addition, some selective pressures are needed. The time of snowball earth is conjectured to have supplied such pressure if competition didn't. You don't read wiki very well...
quote: Yet.. we do have such evidence. Not a heck of a lot to be sure but it is there. 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.
This is not the total mystery you think it is. Not for people of the faith.
And if it was; so what? Just what does not knowing the detailed how of something mean? It means faith my friend. It is the evidence of things hoped for the conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024