Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 9:47 PM
50 online now:
AZPaul3, Capt Stormfield, DrJones* (3 members, 47 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,507 Year: 3,544/19,786 Month: 539/1,087 Week: 129/212 Day: 45/14 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion
Jason777
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 61 of 137 (487146)
10-28-2008 1:54 AM


There are always skeptics that dont accept what we already know and try to figure out some way to redate or ignore the evidence,but the truth always leaves evidence behind anyway.

Heres a 2006 article;MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE PRESENCE OF CAMBRIAN LAND PLANTS gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_114319.htm - 6k -

Enjoy.


Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by bluescat48, posted 10-28-2008 9:12 AM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Joe T, posted 10-28-2008 2:03 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 62 of 137 (487156)
10-28-2008 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Jason777
10-28-2008 1:54 AM


Try starting at the main page for this site. Heres a 2006 article;MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE PRESENCE OF CAMBRIAN LAND PLANTS gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_114319.htm - 6k -

I ried the site you listed

404 NOT FOUND!

The document you are looking for cannot be found on this server.
If you believe you are seeing this page in error please contact our support staff
Reference number 058-375-134.
Date: Tue Oct 28 09:10:02 EDT 2008


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Jason777, posted 10-28-2008 1:54 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2008 9:28 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 63 of 137 (487159)
10-28-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by bluescat48
10-28-2008 9:12 AM


Site Link
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_114319.htm

Worked for me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bluescat48, posted 10-28-2008 9:12 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by bluescat48, posted 10-28-2008 2:42 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 64 of 137 (487199)
10-28-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Jason777
10-28-2008 1:54 AM


Yes there is evidence of early Cambrian colonization by land plants. The paper you reference is consistent with the molecular evidence:

quote:
Heckman, DS; Geiser, DM; Eidell, BR; Stauffer, RL; Kardos, NL; Hedges, SB. Molecular evidence for the early colonization of land by fungi and plants. Science. 2001;293:1129–1133. doi: 10.1126/science.1061457.

There are also other papers presenting fossil evidence of primitive land plants in the Cambrian, such as:

quote:
Wang, D. Y., Kumar, S., and Hedges, S. B., 1999, Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi, Proc. Roy. Soc. London. B Biol. 266: 163–171.

However, I’m not sure that this all means what you think it means. From the abstract of your reference:

quote:
“Evidence from cryptospores now indicates that ancestral embryophytes, some of which were at a bryophyte grade of evolution, were abundant colonizers of the land surface by Middle Cambrian time.”

What exactly does this mean to you and how do you explain the evidence within the context of a young earth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Jason777, posted 10-28-2008 1:54 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 65 of 137 (487203)
10-28-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NosyNed
10-28-2008 9:28 AM


Re: Site Link
Strange, when I click on your link it works, but copying the link from the other message gave me an error message. What next?

My point that I wanted was verification of the type of Cambrian plant life which was just as I figured, Bryophytes & Cryptospores, which is not anything unreasonable.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2008 9:28 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Jason777
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 66 of 137 (487207)
10-28-2008 3:28 PM


From Michael cremos' book:
In chapter 3, I present a case of fossil evidence showing that the current Darwinian picture of the evolution of nonhuman species is also in need of revision. Beginning in the 1940s, geologists and paleobotanists working with the Geological Survey of India explored the Salt Range Mountains in what is now Pakistan. They found deep in salt mines evidence for the existence of advanced flowering plants and insects in the early Cambrian periods, about 600 million years ago. According to standard evolutionary ideas, no land plants or animals existed at that time. Flowering plants and insects are thought to have come into existence hundreds of millions of years later. To explain the evidence some geologists proposed that there must have been a massive overthrust, by which Eocene layers, about 50 million years old, were thrust under Cambrian layers, over 550 million years old. Others pointed out that there were no geological signs of such an overthrust. According to these scientists, the layers bearing the fossils of the advanced plants and insects were found in normal position, beneath strata containing trilobites, the characteristic fossil of the Cambrian. One of these scientists, E. R. Gee, a geologist working with the Geological Survey of India, proposed a novel solution to the problem. In the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of India for the year 1945 (section B, v. 16, pp. xlv–xlvi), paleobotanist Birbal Sahni noted: “Quite recently, an alternative explanation has been offered by Mr. Gee. The suggestion is that the angiosperms, gymnosperms and insects of the Saline Series may represent a highly evolved Cambrian or Precambrian flora and fauna! In other words, it is suggested that these plants and animals made their appearance in the Salt Range area several hundred million years earlier than they did anywhere else in the world. One would scarcely have believed that such an idea would be seriously put forward by any geologist today.” The controversy was left unresolved. In the 1990s, petroleum geologists, unaware of the earlier controversy, restudied the area. They determined that the salt deposits below the Cambrian deposits containing trilobites were early Cambrian or Precambrian. In other words, they found no evidence of an overthrust. The salt deposits were in a natural position below the Cambrian deposits. This supports Gee’s suggestion that the plant and insect remains in the salt deposits were evidence of an advanced fauna and flora existing in the early Cambrian. This evidence contradicts not only the Darwinian concept of the evolution of humans but of other species as well.

One of the most comprehensive papers you can find on evidence for precambrian plants,including sources and referrences and why evolutionist and creationist alike dont like the evidence.
www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_3/plantfossils.html -
72k -

Here is also evidencne of possibily magor vertebrates being present as well.
www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_3/plantfossils.html - 72k -
Abstract from the article;A GROUP of fossils with bodies less than half a millimetre long is perplexing parasitologists. The fossils are 500 million years old, and the animals from which they formed are the earliest known parasites. They look almost identical to the larvae of modern pentastomids, or tongue worms, which infect a wide range of vertebrates including crocodiles, birds, lions and occasionally humans. Yet the fossils were formed hundreds of millions of years before the animals' present hosts evolved

How can you have land parasites of magor vertebrates in the cambrian if magor vertebrates dont exist?It' almost like finding a dog collar and claiming you still dont beleive dog's exist.

I dont know how it all fits into the young earth model,but im pretty convinced evolution is out of the picture scientificaly.

Thanks.


Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Larni, posted 11-07-2008 8:11 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
Jason777
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 67 of 137 (487208)
10-28-2008 3:38 PM


Sorry,wrong link on the last article.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519662.600-wanted-host-for-the-worlds-oldest-parasite.html - 53k -
Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by bluescat48, posted 10-28-2008 10:34 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 68 of 137 (487242)
10-28-2008 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jason777
10-28-2008 3:38 PM


You didn't go the route.

One possibility, however, is that the ancient pentastomids attached themselves to the gills of some of the large marine arthropods which were common in Ordovician times. These include familiar fossils such as the trilobites, and a lesser-known group called the anomalocarids, voracious predators which could grow up to 2 metres long. At some point, suggests Riley, the pentastomids must have made the leap from marine invertebrates to freshwater and land-living vertebrates, and so were able to survive when their former hosts became extinct.

Just because modern tongue worms are parasites of modern animals it doesn't mean that the Cambrian tongue worms had to. There were plenty of animals for them to be parasites of.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jason777, posted 10-28-2008 3:38 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 951 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 69 of 137 (487921)
11-06-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NOT JULIUS
10-23-2008 6:03 PM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
I think this link could be helpful.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianFossils.htm

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-23-2008 6:03 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 11-06-2008 3:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Huntard, posted 11-06-2008 3:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 11-06-2008 7:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 73 by bluescat48, posted 11-06-2008 8:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 11-07-2008 1:09 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 70 of 137 (487922)
11-06-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid
11-06-2008 3:15 PM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
The Cambrian fossils are the greatest evidence against evolution of the species.

Perhaps to creation "scientists" this might be the case, but not to real scientists.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-06-2008 3:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 370 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Precambrian_life

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Precambrian_life

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 responded

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

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 72 of 137 (487950)
11-06-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid
11-06-2008 3:15 PM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
Hi AOKid,

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?

What do you think would be the next best step? Read science books that cover the "Cambrian Explosion", or wing it from a laymen perspective?

Im not trying to insult here, I honestly want to know what you believe would be the next best move in understanding this period in Earths history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-06-2008 3:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 73 of 137 (487953)
11-06-2008 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid
11-06-2008 3:15 PM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
In the Cambrian "Poof" (it's a better word than "explosion")

No it isn't and the term explosion is senseless too unless you consider a "poof" or "explosion" to be 15+ million years.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 11:33 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 74 of 137 (487964)
11-07-2008 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Jason777
10-27-2008 6:53 PM


Hi, Jason777.

Sorry I took so long to respond.

In all honesty, though, I don't find much point in responding to most of your post. But, I do want to respond to this:

Jason777 writes:

I guess if we pulled a rabbit out of the cambrian they would only say "Why do we only find single celled organisms below it?"

Just another example why evolution is unfalsifiabal.

I have explained this many times on this website, and it still upsets me enough that I want to do it again now.

Evolution is not the theory that a rabbit in the Cambrian period would falsify. The word you want is natural history. You do not, apparently, have a problem with the concept of evolution when it is properly defined, and I am extremely tired of people conflating a historical model of life on earth that they loathe with a theory that explains how heredity determines the future of a lineage of organisms.

Rabbits in the Cambrian would disprove the current model of natural history, which has rabbits first evolving in the Eocene or something like that. Rabbits in the Cambrian would not disprove the current model of evolution, which states that the environment creates a "selective force" that causes all organisms to match its conditions or fail to persist.

There is a reason why white tigers are rare in the wild: they can't get any food because they can't sneak up on their prey. There is a reason why diopsid flies have their eyes on long stalks: because longer stalks attract more females and facilitate greater success in jousting with other males. There is a reason why bacteria survive better when mutations enhance their ability to utilize the substrate on which they are raised: they get more food from their substrate.

We have a name for this bunch of phenomena. It's called evolution by natural selection. Rabbits in the Cambrian wouldn't change that.

So, when you say, “this proves that evolution is unfalsifiable,” what you are saying is, “this proves natural history unfalsifiable.” This is, technically, true, simply because natural history is not a rigid theory, but a historical narrative that must be rewritten every time a new fossil is found.

Those who are inclined to think religiously want everything that people study, ponder, work on, subsribe to or support to be bundled up into a tidy syndrome that they can suffix with “-ism.” But, the fact remains that scientific theories are discreet entities, and you must treat them as such, in your disproofs as much as in your conflatory preaching.

-----

Aside from that, the rest of your post about land plants in the Cambrian period doesn't really mean much. It’s an interesting topic, in its own right, but is not the topic of this thread. Propose a topic, and perhaps you’ll get an interesting discussion going. I personally have no expertise in paleobotany: I know very little beyond Lepidodendron and Calamites, so I probably will not greatly attend your discussion. Good luck in your endeavor.

Now, back to the Cambrian explosion.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Jason777, posted 10-27-2008 6:53 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 75 of 137 (487965)
11-07-2008 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid
11-06-2008 3:15 PM


Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion
The Kid!

Welcome to the thread, man!

AOkid writes:

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?

Like you, I respect Doubting Too for his inoffensive manner and his humility in presenting his position.

However, from my perspective, Doubting Too did not ask, “where did these come from?” Rather, he drew his own conclusion based on a page of photographs that he found on the net, and decided to reject the hard-earned witness of many researchers whose work has compiled over 200 years to finally arrive at the conclusion that cursory glances at things do not produce sound results.

-----

AOkid writes:

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.

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).

Otherwise, it would be your duty to explain why God only covered organisms in certain kinds of sediments during the Flood, while preventing them from being covered in other types of sediments. The onus would also be on you to explain the gaps between the few rock formations that we have. You could explain them as repeated “creation-destroy-creation” sequences—that’s easy enough: God was experimenting, trying to find the exact combinations that He wanted in His biosphere. You will also have to explain why these different sets of fossils fit so darn well into the evolutionary picture of radiation and selection.

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).

To me, it makes good sense to say something like, “Shale preserves fossils; other rocks don’t.” And, there is sufficient space between the formations for the evolution of the earlier faunas into the later ones to have occurred. Thus, the evolutionary natural history model doesn’t have anything else to explain, while the creationary natural history model has a lot of contingencies to explain.

Convenient for us, isn’t it? We planned it that way.

{AbE: For Huntard: "OOS" is "Origin of Species"---it's AOkidspeak for "ToE/Abiogenesis," which, to him, are one and the same.}

Edited by Bluejay, : Addition for Huntard


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-07-2008 10:39 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019