Cambrian Explosion
- Thread starter Enigma'07
- Start date
If you compress the entire 4.2 billion years of earth into 24 hours, the cambrian explosian lasts 1 minuet. Natural selection happens "slowly by accumulating slight, succesive, favrorable variations. No great or sudden modifications." In the cambrian explosion, Phyla appear rapidly in the fossil record, not gradually.
It’s well worth checking this page before posting attacks on evolution as this is where most of us get our answers from.
Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Cambrian Explosion
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Cambrian Explosion
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
there are may possible reasons:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
Now that's just silly. How can you have evidence of lack of fossils? You're pushing it now.
Strange thing about that talkorigins site, it says that many phyla didn't originate in the cambrian explosion but Gould says that all but one did. "The Cambrian then began with an assemblage of bits and pieces, frustratingly difficult to interpret, called the "small shelly fauna." The subesequent main pulse, starting about 530 million years ago, constitutes the famous Cambrian explosion, during which all but one modern phylum of animal life made a first appearance in the fossil record. (Geologists had previously allowed up to 40 million years for this event, but an elegant study, published in 1993, clearly restricts this period of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years.) The Bryozoa, a group of sessile and colonial marine organisms, do not arise until the beginning of the subsequent, Ordovician period, but this apparent delay may be an artifact of failure to discover Cambrian representatives."* Now, just cause Gould says it doesn't necessarily make it so, but he is the evolution guru.
Don't know the details of this 1993 study, but it seems to have convinced Gould of the 5 million years; which by the way, is still a long time in my book.I wonder about a site that makes claims specifically to refute certain creationist claims. It seems to be doing what the creationists are doing by taking specific things and just answering them. Possibly not even being ethical in the way it's doing it. I'd guess that many of the phyla's representative fossils are precursors or something and can possibly be called not of the phyla if you want to get technical.
I'd have to go with my favorite reason for the Cambrian Explosion as being the invention of teeth. Isn't this when the Anomalocaris developed? That thing they thought was originally a tail then it turns out that it was a grasping claw of predator? Things began eating each other and it became an arms race in many ways. I could be wrong about this. I'm no expert on the subject, just gathered bits and pieces down the line.
Another thing about the Cambrian Explosion (and the times before and after for that matter) is that there are many lines of evolution that went nowhere. And there is no clear reason why one line should advance while another line failed. It comes down to luck, I guess. And Natural Selection is not the only means by which evolution happens, only the most apparent in our time.
But, Enigma, it's not really ethical to search through the record and try to find the weak links to pick apart. You are a creationist and you are doing exactly what creationist's do. Creationism isn't a science it's a picking apart of what they don't want to believe in. And it's funny that you are so willing to compress this time down to the 1 minute scale. How old do you think the earth is? And what evidence do you have for that belief?
The Cambrian Explosion is a mystery. We have a long way to go to discovering the full mechanisms behind evolution. There are many theories and some are right some are wrong. But, evolution occurs. It can hardly be denied. The evidence is too overwhelming. You can not see the nose on your face if you want, but don't call it science by claiming that it's not there. And really, I don't see what you hope to achieve in so doing on this site. There's very few people here who don't see the truth in evolution. And you few are not going to alter their opinions on this matter because of creationist claims, they've heard it all before. And in all likelihood that great majority is not going to alter the few's opinion, because they must believe what they believe or imperil their faith.
*The Evolution of Life on Earth by Stephen Jay Gould, Scientific American Special Edition, Dinosaurs and Other Monsters.
Creatures to small and without a hard shell for example never got fossilized in quantities large enough for us to detect. Funny thing about fossil only a very small faction of animals living in specific regions gets fossilized, of those we have dug up a very small amount. Of course the fossil record is incomplete and I doubt it ever will be complete.
Enigma'07 said:
Well... Read inverts post because it's more thorough than this but here goes.
There is no evidence, and that's the point. The fossil record at it's very best is incomplete because not all life forms leave a record. By looking at the fossil record, you only see what is preserved not what was there. Lack of evidence does not indicate a lack of existence. If you truly are a creation science type, then surely you can understand this. An agnostic doesn't believe in God because they can't prove that one exists. And yet, many people have faith. Science and faith are very different things. Science sees evidence and then believes it to be true. Faith believes without needing to see the evidence. It is insulting to both to mix the two.
Actually, I didn't even mention the evidence of lack of fossils other than to call it silly. It's too self-evident that all life doesn't end up as a fossil to even comment on in my opinion. But, I probably would have anyway if I hadn't gone on the other tangents. It's funny that creationists will use lack of evidence as an argument against what they don't believe in and use it as an argument against those who doubt their faith. It's doublethink. The means you use to win an argument are only relevant for disputing whatever particular argument you are refuting at the time. If it convenient to ignore or even reverse your contention later, it is perfectly acceptable to them to do so. That's why picking on the small things is unethical. By so doing you split the argument up where the hypocrisies in your arguments aren't noticeable.
Bah! Creationism.
Bah! Creationism.
Apperently our knowledge on precambrian times has increased dramatically.
There seems to be a rather long period between the appearance fo the first eukaryotic cell and the first multicellular life.
In a way this is not very strange at all, because the genetic information was lacking for a long time to make multicellular life. But once the possibility arose, and the genetic plasticity was there is went fast.
One might also want to mention the ediacara fauna which predates the cambrian explosion but was most likely a failed experiment.
In fact Gould mentions that the 100 million years between from ediacara to burgess fauna might have given rise to 3 radically different faunas (ediacara, tommotian, modern fauna).
He also mentions that 20 percent of major groups are known exclusively by their presence in the three greatest paleozoic lagerstatten.
There seems to be a rather long period between the appearance fo the first eukaryotic cell and the first multicellular life.
In a way this is not very strange at all, because the genetic information was lacking for a long time to make multicellular life. But once the possibility arose, and the genetic plasticity was there is went fast.
One might also want to mention the ediacara fauna which predates the cambrian explosion but was most likely a failed experiment.
In fact Gould mentions that the 100 million years between from ediacara to burgess fauna might have given rise to 3 radically different faunas (ediacara, tommotian, modern fauna).
He also mentions that 20 percent of major groups are known exclusively by their presence in the three greatest paleozoic lagerstatten.
I am currently reading a pro-creation book and I just wanted to see how well the arguments actually stood up. I didn't use a 1 minuet scale, it was 24 hours, and I ment it to be an illustration/example. Personally, I believe the earth is 6,000; 10,000 max years old. My evidance is that
A. Red blood cells/hemoglobin have been found in dinosaur bones, and these
would not still exist if the dinosaurs lived 65 Ma ago. It breaks down in only a few thousand years time.
B. Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere. Total helium in the atmophere today is 1/2000 of what it should be if the earth is billions of years old.
C. Evolutionists claim that the moon is 4.6 billion years old. the moon recedes from earth at a rate of 4cm a year, and this would be even greater in the past. To get to were the moon is today, the maximum time it would take to get there would be 1.37 billion years.
D. Oceans
tell me if my facts are wrong:
(1)pre-cambrian= jellyfish, sponges, worms
(2)at the beginning of the cambrian, representatives of arthropods, echinoderms, and chordates apear.
(3)above mentioned 2 occured suddenly at the beginning of the cambrian
(4)contradicts Darwins tree of life due to the sudden appearance of fully developed creatures
(5)If in fact, Darwin's tree upside down
I think it's funny that evolutionists require creationists to set aside their presuppositions, but see it fully fair to use theirs. How about fitting facts to a theory and not theory to the facts.
I agree that it will never be complete, but there have been soft-bodies organisms fossilized, even bacteria that have been dated to be 3 billion+ years old. Also, millions of fossils have already been discovered. There are plenty of sedimentary rocks from the pre-cambrian era to preseve ancestors of these organisms.
Except science supports my religion, at least from my perspective.
That's pretty interesting... can you point me to the original paper describing this discovery?Enigma'07 said:
Did you know that Earth's gravity isn't strong enough to hold onto Helium, so atmospheric Helium escapes into space? And that most Helium is released into underground deposits rather than directly to the atmosphere?
You might like to check your facts. Let me know if you need some help on finding sources.
There's your first problem Enigma, Evolution no longer operates purely under Darwin's hypothesis. The science of Evolution has advanced quite a lot in the last 150 years. To argue against Darwin's original hypothesis is like arguing that there can be no intercontinental air travel because the Wright brothers only flew 120 feet. Creationist literature has a strong tendency to do this; it's basically a series of straw-man arguments.Enigma'07 said:
~Raithere
Enigma'07 said:
Yes your fact is wrong, pre-cambrianfauna consisted of the obscure and extinct ediacara and tommotian. I can already see where you go wrong here. You think that yellyfish, sponges and worms are primitive and hence must come first. First of all worms used a collective name for animals that looked like worms but couldn't be placed anywhere. Hence the term worm has no meaning because worms can be form rather different groups. Second of all, I can't be bothered to waste more time on this point.
Enigma'07 said:
No, members of all the major groups appear and some that are now extinct. They appear in our sparse fossil record. That doesn't mean of course that they didn't exist before.
appearance of fully developed creatures[/QUOTE]Enigma'07 said:
Not really. Why would it contradict the theory of evolution?
Enigma'07 said:
Life is not a tree but more a bush.
so much for facts.