Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 9:18 AM
29 online now:
edge, JoeT, kjsimons, RAZD, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,849 Year: 9,885/19,786 Month: 2,307/2,119 Week: 343/724 Day: 6/62 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 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?

Click to enlarge

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

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

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 122 of 137 (488366)
11-10-2008 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2008 11:49 AM


Re: Most Invertebrates have HARD parts.
So how does mineralisation occure inside amber?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 11:49 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 12:08 PM Larni has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Resin_fossils

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 responded

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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 124 of 137 (488371)
11-10-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2008 11:52 AM


Re: Global flood again?
Sorry, not a red herring.

Science has examined the flood story and it has been falsified.

To turn that around you have to battle all of science, not just promote some minor claim about the Cambrian--an epoch which doesn't have anything to do with creationism in the first place!

Face it: you are arguing from religious belief, and refuse to accept the broad conclusions of science no matter what the evidence shows.

And the evidence shows that the global flood is a tribal myth. It is probably based on the earlier account which probably originated with the Black Sea expansion.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 11:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 1:12 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 125 of 137 (488372)
11-10-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Most Invertebrates have HARD parts.
I stand corrected.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 12:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 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?

Click to enlarge

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

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 127 of 137 (488380)
11-10-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2008 11:24 AM


Re: Most Invertebrates have HARD parts.
Hi, AlphOmegakid.

AOkid writes:

Have you ever heard of Mollusca?

Nope. Never heard of them.

Are you aware that insects outnumber molluscs more than 10 to 1? Are you aware that nematodes may be as common as (or much more common than) insects, and that they definitely outnumber molluscs by a wide margin?

Why the hell should I care about the molluscs when they represent less than 10% of the invertebrates? Because they represent a huge portion of the invertebrate fossil record? I’m not sure how you don’t realize that this entirely proves my point.

-----

AOkid writes:

Many of these organisms [molluscs] have hard parts and they fossilize well. And of course you know that mineralization is not the only form of fossilization…

…So to completely destroy your argument, both arthropods and mulluscs [sic] comprise the vast majority of invertebrates. And they both often have hard parts. And they both often fossilize well.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough about mineralization. When I said, “mineralized,” I was not referring to preservation. The shell of a mollusc and the bones of a vertebrate contain large amounts of minerals (with calcium, phosphate, etc.). Pearl, mother-of-pearl, ivory, etc. are minerals.

Mineralized objects fossilize well: this means that the natural minerals are replaced by minerals from the sediment in which the object is buried.

Most invertebrates do not have mineral-based hard parts: chitin, the most common “hard part” in invertebrates, is an organic molecule. Organic molecules don’t last as well as minerals. And, chitin is the substance from which all insect exoskeletons are made (some might have minerals, like hard-shelled beetles, for instance, but most don’t).

But then, I assume you know all of this already because it’s all outlined very nicely on the Martinez-Delclos page you provided me, which, contrary to what you claimed, does not say that the insect fossil record is as diverse and complete as the vertebrate fossil record. It doesn’t say that, because saying that would be foolish.

Let’s break it down for you:

Pick any vertebrate order you want. Let’s go with Carnivora, because that’s a cool one. How many fossils carnivorans have been found since the order first arose about 40 Mya? Lions, jaguars, tigers, dire wolves, saber-toothed cats, nimravids, hyenas, cheetahs, bears, procyonids, seals, etc., many, such as the panda, with several transitionals. Probably hundreds of carnivoran taxa have been found in 40 Myrs.

How about an insect order? Let’s go with Mantodea, because it’s my favorite, and I did a review paper on the mantid fossil record last year. There are only about 20 taxa known since the beginning of the Cretaceous (150 Mya; when the oldest mantid fossils are found), most of which are represented by fewer than three or four specimina, and none of which is known from a complete, adult specimen. The majority of fossils are nymphs in amber and disarticulated wings (one of which was originally described as a mayfly).

Yet, today, there are over 2000 living species of mantids (and probably 100 or 200 more undescribed), and there are only 260 species of Carnivorans. Explain, in your own words, the disparity in fossil numbers with something other than, “mantids don’t fossilize as well as carnivorans.”

If you can’t, kindly shut up and stop making your ridiculous argument.

Relating it back to the topic, since insects apparently fossilize much less readily than do vertebrates, how many soft-bodied things and soft-exoskeletal things do you think escaped our notice during, before and after the Cambrian Explosion? Probably a lot.

-----

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.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 11:24 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 2:29 PM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 130 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2008 2:46 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 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/releases/2007/10/071030211210.htm

Here's some more:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030211210.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030211210.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030211210.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v117/n2940/abs/117344a0.html

http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/02-05.htm

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....

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;306/5700/1291a

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 yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 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 responded

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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 130 of 137 (488387)
11-10-2008 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Blue Jay
11-10-2008 1:56 PM


The "flood" again
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.

You are right, we could do that.

But it is more my style to present evidence; that is why I am getting the "fingers in the ears" treatment.

This whole long thread on the Cambrian is meaningless as there is nothing there that supports creationism or a global flood. To debate the issue is futile unless creationists can come up with evidence tying the Cambrian to either creationism or a global flood.

And that evidence can't be some small picky point; it has to be enough to overturn pretty much all of science. Arguing about the shells of molluscs may be interesting, but it leads nowhere for creationists.

If creationists want to argue that the Cambrian represents Noah's flood, they have a huge burden of proof to assemble. Just for starters, they need to explain a slight difference of somewhere near 550 million years in the dates shown by science and the dates proposed by creationists. And that is just for starters.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2008 1:56 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 3:07 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2008 7:56 PM Coyote has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 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 yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 132 of 137 (488412)
11-10-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2008 2:29 PM


Re: Reading is the magic key, that takes you where you want to be?
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.

AOkid writes:

Bluejay writes:

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 naturalism and evolution is filling in the gaps.

You’re the one who’s asking us to alter our interpretation of the rest of the fossil record that we do know to accomodate one portion that you think is problematic. My argument is an extrapolation of a well-documented pattern into an area that isn't as well-documented. On the other hand,your argument is...

Actually, wait, what is your argument again?

-----

AOkid writes:

In my above quote, do you see any reference at all to the Bible?

Come to think of it, I don't see much of a reference to anything substantive. Like always, you’ve taken up a vague position that could be consistent with a hundred explanations (yes, flooding is consistent with evolution and even :eek: uniformitarianism!!), and you've contented yourself to just sit back and criticize us without taking your turn in the hot seat.

-----

AOkid writes:

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.

So, if you weren't arguing that the Flood is responsible for the Cambrian Explosion, what did you expect to gain by mentioning flooding in the post before? Doesn't that constitute a...


Click to enlarge

But, thank you for actually responding this time.

Now, what is your Explanation for the Cambrian Explosion?

State it clearly for us: we want a chance to be hidden theory snipers, too.

-----

P.S. Anything else to say about invertebrates and hard parts?


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2008 2:29 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 133 of 137 (488413)
11-10-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coyote
11-10-2008 2:46 PM


Re: The "flood" again
Hi, Coyote.

Coyote writes:

This whole long thread on the Cambrian is meaningless...

Hey! Don't go knocking my longest-running thread at EvC. I finally started a topic that people actually wanted to talk about, and you're calling it "meaningless." Thanks, dude. :P

-----

Coyote writes:

To debate the issue is futile unless creationists can come up with evidence tying the Cambrian to either creationism or a global flood.

That's the biggest problem with the opposition, I think. "Sudden appearance" at one point in the fossil record doesn't help them much when it happens again several more times in the fossil record. It would only help their case if everything appeared at once. They would need dinosaurs, trilobites, ferns, Penicilium, mammals and frogs, all suddenly popping into existence in one stratum, and nothing new coming up after that.

Anything short of that is proof of evolution, to whatever degree. They can quibble and complain, but, in the end, they have to realize, sooner or later, that natural history isn't evolution, so even a magical Cambrian Explosion doesn't overturn ToE.

:eek:

I just had an epiphany! They've been going about it all wrong! AOkid's particular flavor of creationist has been trying to debunk evolution by debunking natural history, when, really, they have to do it the other way around. They have to prove that ToE is false before they can disprove evolutionary natural history. I wonder if any of them realizes this.

Edited by Bluejay, : Wording


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 11-10-2008 8:31 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 135 by onifre, posted 11-10-2008 10:07 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 134 of 137 (488414)
11-10-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Blue Jay
11-10-2008 7:56 PM


Re: The "flood" again
Sorry, didn't mean to knock your thread.

But I do find it interesting that creationists who normally express no interest in science, or are generally anti-science*, take great interest in a very few topics, one of which is the Cambrian "explosion." This is only spurred on by the creationist websites, now nearly ubiquitous, that are among the largest purveyors of untruth ever when it comes to science.

--------------------------

* When I say "anti-science" I mean that many creationists feel they can pick and choose among the results of scientific endeavors, and reject the ones which, for religious reasons, they don't like while accepting the rest--all of which were obtained using the exact same scientific methods. Sorry, you can't just pick the results you like and reject the rest and then claim you are pro-science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2008 7:56 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 135 of 137 (488417)
11-10-2008 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Blue Jay
11-10-2008 7:56 PM


Kudos on the thread
Hi Bluejay,

As a lover of science I, like most I guess, have my areas of science that I enjoy the most. Natural history is not one of them. In fact the details of evolution aren't one of them either. I have the general understanding of it and read many science magazines so I try to stay informed on whats going on in the Bio world. But, for the most part, it bores me. No offence to anyone.

Hey! Don't go knocking my longest-running thread at EvC. I finally started a topic that people actually wanted to talk about, and you're calling it "meaningless."

I must say that I never really payed much attention to the cambrian explosion, nor did I know that creationist had issue with it, till you started this thread. I learned a bunch from you guys and I learned the typical creationist arguments and where they go wrong so, thanks.

I hope it continues to go longer, even though it seems Coyote is getting tired of the repetative arguments from these guys, and I can understand his feelings, but I hope it can continue as it has been. Hopefully you and Bluecat can stay at it. It kinda sparked my interest in a topic that usually bores the shit out of me, so thanks again...even though it still kinda bores me. j/k :D


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2008 7:56 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
5678
9
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