Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Proof


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#21 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 15 November 2007 - 08:14 PM

This was very good information.  I was wondering what you mean by being a theistic evolutionist.  Does that mean you believe in God but that evolution was the mechanics he used for creation?  I know it is personal so feel free not to answer.

Question about the information: 

I was surprised that there where that many transitional fossils.  When ever I here something that should be huge but isn't discussed much I feel that neither side feels it is compelling evidence: My yellow flag is raised.  How strong is that evidence?  I don't know, so this is an honest question.
Thewissen, Hussain, and Arif 1994; Thewissen, Williams, Roe, and Hussain 2001)

View Post


You are asking perfectly rational questions. I don't want to deviate into issues of theistic evolution, but I have always liked Einstein's view of God. Much of that goes back to Spinoza.

As far as transitional fossils, yes, there are many many transitional fossils. Most of these don't get much press when they are simply between two species (e.g., two species of horse or two species of trilobite), however they are found almost every week. If you do a google news search you can find all sorts of new things found. Try this link.

http://news.google.c...els&btnG=Search

Second, it is important to remember that the evolutionary tree is more like a bush with thorns. Imagine you sample a branch like this one in a hundred random places.
Posted Image

Many of the samples will be in branches. Some will be on thorns. Imagine you find a new fossil in the right layers of rock that looks like a blend between two species that have been found in higher and lower strata. Now the question is: "Is this a species on the branch representing a direct line between the two species?" or is this a thorn on the branch that links the two species? Often one can not be sure until one finds a lot of samples.

For example, human evolution was once thought to be a single branch bridging an ape like creature to man. The many different hominid fossils now suggests a bush like the one below.

Posted Image

I will try to get to your question on the Cambrian animals a bit later.

#22 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 15 November 2007 - 08:57 PM

You are asking perfectly rational questions. I don't want to deviate into issues of theistic evolution, but I have always liked Einstein's view of God. Much of that goes back to Spinoza.

As far as transitional fossils, yes, there are many many transitional fossils. Most of these don't get much press when they are simply between two species (e.g., two species of horse or two species of trilobite), however they are found almost every week. If you do a google news search you can find all sorts of new things found. Try this link.

http://news.google.c...els&btnG=Search

Second, it is important to remember that the evolutionary tree is more like a bush with thorns. Imagine you sample a branch like this one in a hundred random places.
Posted Image 

Many of the samples will be in branches. Some will be on thorns. Imagine you find a new fossil in the right layers of rock that looks like a blend between two species that have been found in higher and lower strata. Now the question is: "Is this a species on the branch representing a direct line between the two species?"  or is this a thorn on the branch that links the two species?  Often one can not be sure until one finds a lot of samples.

For example, human evolution was once thought to be a single branch bridging an ape like creature to man. The many different hominid fossils now suggests a bush like the one below.

Posted Image

I will try to get to your question on the Cambrian animals a bit later.

View Post


This is interesting- thanks.

God Bless
Bruce

#23 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 15 November 2007 - 10:43 PM

Question:  The Cambrian fossils looks like the more sophisticated fossils showed up first (phyra (sp)) and then the lower forms.  Is this true, if so how does this fit into the evolution theory?

View Post


First, I am not sure what you mean by sophisticated. In the Cambrian we have no vertebrates just some very simple chordates without any boney structure that many believe evolve into vertebrates in another 50 million years or so. In fact, with the exception of some bivalves, almost none of these would be familiar to anyone today. There are certainly some very strange animals that are never seen again and they are certainly more complex than those found in the Ediacaran animals found before that. There are trilobites with eyes, but the eyes become more complex and regular in the layers above this.
A year ago, my wife and I hiked up to the Burgess shale in British Columbia. If you ever get a chance, I highly recommend it. In the Cambrian you get odd creatures like these. Many like opabinia were evolutionary dead ends. It really does look like a set of evolutionary experiments in which just a few were successful.
Posted Image
I really don't see how this would support a creationist view unless you like the idea that God was trying out a few strange animals before deciding what he was going to make into more common looking animals.

It is important to remember that there were animals in the millions of years before the Cambrian. I provided some examples above. Here is an artists view of life 20 million years or so before the Cambrian.


Posted Image

The sort of tree one gets for known fossils looks something like this. However, there remain a lot of debates regarding what animals in the Pre-cambrian led to the animals in the Cambrian. The Chinese Cambrian fossils come from earlier Cambrian periods so scientists are beginning to fill out this tree more
Posted Image

#24 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 15 November 2007 - 11:34 PM

Wow, I have to read and explore more about this. You have certainly gotten me curious. I have always had more questions than answers about the fossil record.

When you where in BC did you get any interesting fossils? That sounds like a lot of fun.

I was under the impression that life precambrian was sponges and small multicellular organisms. In the picture you provided the plant life looks more complex than what I was told.

Again, thank you for the information.

God Bless,

Bruce

#25 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 16 November 2007 - 01:21 AM

James gives good information, so I'll just add a few generalities:

Plant life:
The basis for the Cambrian explosion was indeed that plants had evolved. Primitive algae, mostly, but with an important effect: The atmosphere changed and became (relatively) oxygen-rich. This, over a relatively short time period (as geological times go, meaning millions of years), made the Earth habitable for oxygen-dependent life-forms, effectively triggering the Cambrian explosion.

Inverse complexity:
The perceived inverse complexity is partly illusion, partly predictable. It is partly illusion, because in the Cambrian Era, life forms appeared with various shells, which fossilize much better than shell-less life forms. Therfore, the shelled forms will be over-represented in the oldest strata, compared to the more fragile forms that coexisted with them, and only find representation later.

It is partly predictable, because the ToE does not necessarily require that things become more complex, although that is the general trend. However, the ToE posits that the best adapted form will survive, and there can be scenarios where that is a more simple form. This is because complex forms are often more specialized, and thus more vulnerable to changes in the environment.

Fossil record:
When we say fossil record, we tend to think of dino skeletons, trilobyte shells, and other interesting things, but there exists a much more subtle, yet much more massive record. Consider what I wrote above about plants providing oxygen: The fact that Earth's atmosphere changed from reducing to oxydizing had a massive impact on the forms of rocks that were generated. We can follow the change from a CO2 and Methane-rich atmosphere to the present Oxygen-rich composition in ancient rock strata. This is also a type of fossil record.

Another type, think "The White Cliffs of Dover" and other magnificent chalk deposits all over the world. They are not only fossil rich. They consist entirely of fossils! The very rocks are built from the near-microscopic "skeletons" of numerous extings species of tiny sea-creatures. A fist-sized piace of writing-chalk consists millions of these tiny fossils, and those deposits are mile-thick in places. Just think of the biological conditions required to build these cliffs. Obviously, evolutionists conclude that for these uncounted trillions of creatures to live, procreate, die, and form miles of solid chalk rocks, millions of years is required.

Hans

#26 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 16 November 2007 - 06:57 AM

James gives good information, so I'll just add a few generalities:

Plant life:
The basis for the Cambrian explosion was indeed that plants had evolved. Primitive algae, mostly, but with an important effect: The atmosphere changed and became (relatively) oxygen-rich. This, over a relatively short time period (as geological times go, meaning millions of years), made the Earth habitable for oxygen-dependent life-forms, effectively triggering the Cambrian explosion.

Inverse complexity:
The perceived inverse complexity is partly illusion, partly predictable. It is partly illusion, because in the Cambrian Era, life forms appeared with various shells, which fossilize much better than shell-less life forms. Therfore, the shelled forms will be over-represented in the oldest strata, compared to the more fragile forms that coexisted with them, and only find representation later.

It is partly predictable, because the ToE does not necessarily require that things become more complex, although that is the general trend. However, the ToE posits that the best adapted form will survive, and there can be scenarios where that is a more simple form. This is because complex forms are often more specialized, and thus more vulnerable to changes in the environment.

Fossil record:
When we say fossil record, we tend to think of dino skeletons, trilobyte shells, and other interesting things, but there exists a much more subtle, yet much more massive record. Consider what I wrote above about plants providing oxygen: The fact that Earth's atmosphere changed from reducing to oxydizing had a massive impact on the forms of rocks that were generated. We can follow the change from a CO2 and Methane-rich atmosphere to the present Oxygen-rich composition in ancient rock strata. This is also a type of fossil record.

Another type, think "The White Cliffs of Dover" and other magnificent chalk deposits all over the world. They are not only fossil rich. They consist entirely of fossils! The very rocks are built from the near-microscopic "skeletons" of numerous extings species of tiny sea-creatures. A fist-sized piace of writing-chalk consists millions of these tiny fossils, and those deposits are mile-thick in places. Just think of the biological conditions required to build these cliffs. Obviously, evolutionists conclude that for these uncounted trillions of creatures to live, procreate, die, and form miles of solid chalk rocks, millions of years is required.

Hans

View Post


Wow, I have a lot to learn. I am going to buy a book and start learning more. Do you have a beginner book that you would recommend? Jamesf supplied some technical articles that I will attempt to read soon (if it is not too jargon rich for me).

I have many Danish friends. I work with a Danish Company called "Halder Topsoe" which makes catalyst. Have you heard of the company?

Cheers,

Bruce

#27 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2007 - 02:57 PM

  I really don't see how this would support a creationist view unless you like the idea that God was trying out a few strange animals before deciding what he was going to make into more common looking animals.


Exactly what is the "Theistic Evolution View", and how does thiesm fit into naturalism?

Terry

#28 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2007 - 03:29 PM

First, I am not sure what you mean by sophisticated. In the Cambrian we have no vertebrates just some very simple chordates without any boney structure that many believe evolve into vertebrates in another 50 million years or so. In fact, with the exception of some bivalves, almost none of these would be familiar to anyone today. There are certainly some very strange animals that are never seen again and they are certainly more complex than those found in the Ediacaran animals found before that. There are trilobites with eyes, but the eyes become more complex and regular in the layers above this.



Well this is all a nice story, but its silly to claim this all as fact. Its just fanciful imagination.

For a somewhat more objective viewpoint, even from someone who believes in evolution, consider the following:

There is a paucity of Precambrian metazoan fossils. There is a sudden dramatic increase in metazoan fossils at the base of the Cambrian.
The Burgess Shale type assemblages show that this is a radiation of soft-bodied as well as skeletalized organisms.
Trace fossils also increase dramatically in both number and range of behaviours.
The Ediacara show that soft-bodied Precambrian faunas can be preserved, so why are there no assemblages of 'true' metazoan soft-bodied faunas from the Precambrian? Why would many different, already separate phyla independently develop the ability to synthesize skeletons?



Cambrian Controversies

Well there are no answers to those questions, and the cambrian "explosion" is why naturalism is falsified right from the get go.

If the base of the tree is rotten, then so is the whole tree.

Terry
P.S. There is no point is swamping a thread with an overload of pictures, especially artists imaginations...

#29 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2007 - 06:17 AM

92g, I don't think it is constructive to enter into semantic nitpicks about the terms "theory" and "proof". Suffice to say that if evidence is solid enough, it is generally termed "proof", however science also recognizes that no "proof" is ever so solid that it could never be overruled, at least not for theories of any complexity.


Hans, its been 100% my experience that the only people who do not want to nitpick over theory and proof are die hard evolutionists who like to argue with christians on the internet. Semantics are important, and when it comes to a legal case, and that's what this principally is, we must fight over them.

I've spoken with numerous peopel over the years from PhD physicists to degreed engineers, and they all agree that evolution is not really science, simply because its not demonstrable.

I wonder if your the same way face-to-face....

Also, I would like to point out that science is not necessarily a study of cause and effect relations. Scinence is ultimately the quest to find facts.


Sure, but discovery is made through the scientific method, and that means that if we are going to call it scientific evidence that it must be able to be reproduced in real time.

Origins science is not really science, and it does not mattter what side of the fence you sit on. Many of the so called "facts" in origins science are not facts at all. They are just inferences derived from what is observed, but those inferences are subject to the frame of reference someone interprets the data from, and can be just as wrong as they are right. You do not know....... Furthermore; it does not matter how many smart people believe they are right. If you don't think a bunch of so-called experts can make a fool out of you, then just ask Collin Powel about his U.N. speach in 2003 where he laid out the mountain of "evidence" that proved Saddam Hussein had WMD. They were all very smart, and they were all very wrong.

That makes them philopophical determinations, and not scientific evidence, and that's why evolution is principally religous in nature.

Terry

#30 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 17 November 2007 - 08:02 AM

Well this is all a nice story, but its silly to claim this all as fact.  Its just fanciful imagination.

View Post


I am not sure what you consider to be imagination. You are welcome to check these 'facts' for yourself. The Smithsonian Institution contains 43 million fossils from around the world. They have 65,000 from the Burgess Shale alone. I wanted to see the site for myself, so I climbed up the 7 miles to the Burgess Shale and sat for hours sorting through all the shale up there looking at the fossils myself.

By the way Golddigger, the site is full of broken shale and it looked like 1 in 10 pieces showed a fossil. But if you try to pocket one of the fossils they will arrest you. And you are required to go up there with a guide. Really spectacular scenary though http://www.burgess-s...bc.ca/hikes.php

So back to the animals found. The Burgess shale has some of the best fossils because the soft parts are preserved. However, the new sites in China are providing some more primitive versions of some of these. If you don't like the artist renditions, then I recommend looking through the actual fossils.
Posted Image

Here is a nice link if you would like to see some of the actual fossils of the Burgess Shale
http://www.gpc.edu/~...ess/burgess.htm

Are you implying that these images are biased? Are you suggesting that modern animals have been found in the Cambrian fossil layers? I would really enjoy seeing these if you can provide a link. I suspect that the Smithsonian would have noted this, but I would really love to see what you know.


For a somewhat more objective viewpoint, even from someone who believes in evolution, consider the following:
Cambrian Controversies

Well there are no answers to those questions, and  the cambrian "explosion" is  why naturalism is falsified right from the get go.

View Post


I am a bit confused by your comment. What do you mean when you say "there are no answers"? Even the site you provide in your link, provides answers. The site you give gives the following answers to your questions

The Cambrian event was the crossing of a biomineralization threshold by already established phyla:

    * Soft-bodied faunas preserve only under exceptional circumstances, therefore Precambrian assemblages are unlikely to be found.
    * The Burgess faunas show that the majority of biota are soft-bodied, if there were no skeletalized elements it is unlikely that anything would ever be preserved from the assemblage.
    * Molecular and cladistic analysis show that the divergence times of most Cambrian phyla must have occured in the Precambrian.
    * Precambrian metazoans could have been very small and therefore fossilization would have been impossible


Everyone is welcome to disagree with such answers. I am not even sure I agree with these particular answers. But what does it mean to say there are "no answers"? Are you suggesting that based on your understanding of evolutionary theory, these answers are insufficient?

Second, the page on this site is several years old. In the last 10 years, a number of fossils have been found that begin to bridge the gap between the Ediacaran fossils and the Cambrian fossils. I can give you a number of links if you would like.

Lower Cambrian Vendobionts from China and Early Diploblast Evolution
http://www.sciencema...ct/312/5774/731

But a more general read can be found here. The link also provides a timeline
http://en.wikipedia....Ediacaran_biota


Here is an example of an Ediacaran fossil found in layers below the Cambrian without any artistic renditions. There is currently a debate regarding whether this was a precursor to the trilobite.

Posted Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spriggina

Also, as our techniques get better, more and more microfossils in the period before the Edicaran period are beginning to show up. I can provide links to these if you are interested.

It is certainly considered good science to say that you disagree with these answers and show that you can provide better answers to why these fossils are found. I look forward to hearing your theory of what produced these strange Cambrian animals.

I hope my links can help. And thank you for providing your link.

#31 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 17 November 2007 - 01:18 PM

I am not sure what you consider to be imagination. You are welcome to check these 'facts' for yourself. The Smithsonian Institution contains 43 million fossils from around the world. They have 65,000 from the Burgess Shale alone. I wanted to see the site for myself, so I climbed up the 7 miles to the Burgess Shale and sat for hours sorting through all the shale up there looking at the fossils myself.

By the way Golddigger, the site is full of broken shale and it looked like 1 in 10 pieces showed a fossil. But if you try to pocket one of the fossils they will arrest you. And you are required to go up there with a guide. Really spectacular scenary though http://www.burgess-s...bc.ca/hikes.php

So back to the animals found. The Burgess shale has some of the best fossils because the soft parts are preserved. However, the new sites in China are providing some more primitive versions of some of these. If you don't like the artist renditions, then I recommend looking through the actual fossils.
Posted Image

Here is a nice link if you would like to see some of the actual fossils of the Burgess Shale
http://www.gpc.edu/~...ess/burgess.htm

Are you implying that these images are biased? Are you suggesting that modern animals have been found in the Cambrian fossil layers? I would really enjoy seeing these if you can provide a link. I suspect that the Smithsonian would have noted this, but I would really love to see what you know.
I am a bit confused by your comment. What do you mean when you say "there are no answers"? Even the site you provide in your link, provides answers. The site you give gives the following answers to your questions
Everyone is welcome to disagree with such answers. I am not even sure I agree with these particular answers. But what does it mean to say there are "no answers"? Are you suggesting that based on your understanding of evolutionary theory, these answers are insufficient?

Second, the page on this site is several years old. In the last 10 years, a number of fossils have been found that begin to bridge the gap between the Ediacaran fossils and the Cambrian fossils. I can give you a number of links if you would like.

Lower Cambrian Vendobionts from China and Early Diploblast Evolution
http://www.sciencema...ct/312/5774/731

But a more general read can be found here. The link also provides a timeline
http://en.wikipedia....Ediacaran_biota
Here is an example of an Ediacaran fossil found in layers below the Cambrian without any artistic renditions. There is currently a debate regarding whether this was a precursor to the trilobite.

Posted Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spriggina

Also, as our techniques get better, more and more microfossils in the period before the Edicaran period are beginning to show up. I can provide links to these if you are interested.

It is certainly considered good science to say that you disagree with these answers and show that you can provide better answers to why these fossils are found. I look forward to hearing your theory of what produced these strange Cambrian animals.

I hope my links can help. And thank you for providing your link.

View Post


As it is noted, I believe in creation so this may sound odd. I really don't want to debate you because you provide very good information which I learn a lot from. So my questions are not for debate reasons, but hoping you will continue to post.
:)
This fossil being precambrian, Ediacaran biota, changes everything I have been told.

The other thing I was told is that the Chinese Cambrian lair has many soft tissue fossils. In other words, Cambrian still looks like an explosion of life starting mostly at the phyla level.

I think your answer was that we are finding transitional fossils Precambrian: I am very interested in this. I like your posts.

God Bless,

Bruce

#32 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2007 - 03:05 PM

I am not sure what you consider to be imagination. You are welcome to check these 'facts' for yourself. The Smithsonian Institution contains 43 million fossils from around the world. They have 65,000 from the Burgess Shale alone. I wanted to see the site for myself, so I climbed up the 7 miles to the Burgess Shale and sat for hours sorting through all the shale up there looking at the fossils myself.


The only fact is that there are fossils there. How they got there, and how old they are is a matter of opinion, and are not scientific facts.


Are you implying that these images are biased? Are you suggesting that modern animals have been found in the Cambrian fossil layers? I would really enjoy seeing these if you can provide a link. I suspect that the Smithsonian would have noted this, but I would really love to see what you know.
I am a bit confused by your comment. What do you mean when you say "there are no answers"? Even the site you provide in your link, provides answers. The site you give gives the following answers to your questions


There are no answers.... If there were answers, there would not be a controversy.

Terry

#33 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 18 November 2007 - 01:43 PM

The only fact is that there are fossils there.  How they got there, and how old they are is a matter of opinion, and are not scientific facts.

View Post


I would argue that there are a large host of facts - many thousands. For paleontologists, we have facts like
1. The distribution of animal types in the Cambrian layers.
2. The differences between these types and the types found in different Cambrian sites around the world.
3. The kinds of fossils that have NEVER been found. e.g., no bones, no teeth, no fish, no pollen, no land plants, no land animals etc.
4. The kinds of fossils found in the layers immediately below the Cambrian (the Ediacaran fossils I showed above).
5. The changes in these fossils between the lower layers and the upper layers of the Cambrian.
6. The fact that for almost all the layers below the Ediacaran layers (often thousands of feet),we find only single cell life.

The list of course is much longer than this. Such facts are verfiable by anyone with a rock hammer and a microscope. Any scientific theory that one proposes regarding the origins of these fossils must be consistent with these facts.


There are no answers....  If there were answers, there would not be a controversy. 

View Post


I can't say I agree with this. Controversy almost always occurs when there is more than one answer (Just ask my wife!). It almost never occurs when there are no answers. I certainly don't think you would say that the current debate regarding creationism in America is because creationists have no answers. Would you?

But yes, there remains debate in the scientific community regarding the Cambrian animals - and this is primarily because there are several answers championed by different scientists. Scientists are busy looking looking for fossils that might help to discriminate these different answers.
They are:

1. The Cambrian animals evolved quickly (e.g., in a brief 20 million years) from a single Metazoan animal. If so, can we find fossils that show this?

2. The Cambrian animals evolved from the Ediacaran animals. If so, can we find animals that are a mix of these two types (e.g., between Spriggia and the trilobites).

3. Before the Cambrian, these animals were microscopic and the availability of both minerals and oxygen allowed for an increase in size and shell structure in the Cambrian.

4. Did the Cambrian animals evolve in a relatively small area on the earth that has not yet been found, then spread around the earth after they became successful? Several lines of research support this.

5. Can the genetic differences between modern phyla point to a date when the phyla first diverged? Some say that this line argues that the phyla diverged 600 million to 900 million years ago. Others disagree.

So overall, there are a number of answers, but the fact that there are several answers does not mean that that we have no answers. If you asked me whether LSU or Kansas will win the National Championship I would say I don't know (I am actually cheering for West Virgina). But the fact that I don't know does not imply that Syracuse has a chance (with 2 wins and 9 losses).

A debate between two views does not imply that all views have an equal chance.


As it is noted, I believe in creation so this may sound odd.  I really don't want to debate you because you provide very good information which I learn a lot from.  So my questions are not for debate reasons, but hoping you will continue to post.

View Post


Bruce,
I think debates can be fun, if both sides are willing to learn and respect the other side. You show both respect and kindness. But I also understand that such debates can be frustrating for either side when the other side does understand or accept your point of view. But certainly don't hesitate asking tough questions.


This fossil being precambrian, Ediacaran biota, changes everything I have been told. 

The other thing I was told is that the Chinese Cambrian lair has many soft tissue fossils.  In other words, Cambrian still looks like an explosion of life starting mostly at the phyla level.

View Post


Fifty years ago, Ediacaran fossils were virtually unknown. Now this era has its own name and there are various sites around the planet (one in Newfoundland that I hope to visit someday). A couple sites (Siberia and China) are said to have exquisite detail enough to determine some of their inner structure. So we should know a bit more in the next few years as to whether these are true precursors. Also, if the percursors were microscopic then the paleontologists need to explore the lower Cambrian with microscopes. This makes finding these fossils much more difficult since very very few Cambrian rocks around the world contain any fossils at all.

#34 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 18 November 2007 - 04:10 PM

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

In answering the question we must ask the question:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?

In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.

#35 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 18 November 2007 - 05:39 PM

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?

In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders. 

Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the  taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor.  The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for.  In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.

View Post


Hi Trilobyte,
If you look on the other side of this thread, you will see that we have been discussing these questions. I look forward to hearing your replies to the issues presented there.
http://www.evolution...=20

I believe you have made a couple of statements that, in my opinion, are not supported by the evidence.
1. Cambrian rocks are NOT basement rocks
There are usually many thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks below the Cambrian rocks. The most famous site, the Burgess Shale is now at 8000 feet with many thousands of feet of sediment below these exposed. Almost all of these layers contain single-cell life only (algae).

2. In the last 20 years or so, many complex animals have been found in the layers directly below the Cambrian. These Ediacaran or Vendian life forms may (or may not) be the ancestors of some of the Cambrian animals. On the link above you will find some of the animals scientists think might be transitional. But here is a link that provides a nice account of these animals (including a possible ancestor of your trilobite - Spriggina).
http://www.ucmp.berk...an/vendian.html

Anyway, give some of the links a read and join the discussion if you like.

#36 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 18 November 2007 - 06:44 PM

Hi Trilobyte,
If you look on the other side of this thread, you will see that we have been discussing these questions. I look forward to hearing your replies to the issues presented there.
  http://www.evolution...=20

I believe you have made a couple of statements that, in my opinion, are not supported by the evidence.
1. Cambrian rocks are NOT basement rocks
  There are usually many thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks below the Cambrian rocks. The most famous site, the Burgess Shale is now at 8000 feet with many thousands of feet of sediment below these exposed. Almost all of these layers contain single-cell life only (algae).

2. In the last 20 years or so, many complex animals have been found in the layers directly below the Cambrian. These Ediacaran or Vendian life forms may (or may not) be the ancestors of some of the Cambrian animals. On the link above you will find some of the animals scientists think might be transitional. But here is a link that provides a nice account of these animals (including a possible ancestor of your trilobite - Spriggina).
http://www.ucmp.berk...an/vendian.html

Anyway, give some of the links a read and join the discussion if you like.

View Post


Hi James,

This is from discovery institute about Cambrian:

Rapid appearance of the primary animal types in the fossil record is very consistent with an Intelligent Design model. The Cambrian explosion appears to
point to ID as the best “explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent.” “The sudden and simultaneous appearance of more than
70 complex animal phyla defies a naturalistic explanation, especially considering that only thirty of those phyla exist today and none of the thirty are new. With
more than forty such phyla disappearing and zero new ones appearing over the past half billion years, evolution’s going the wrong way.”


Questions:
1. Based on the statement "The sudden and simultaneous appearance of more than
70 complex animal phyla" is true: Then where did all the fossils go that should be precursors to each of these phyla? We certainly use microscopes and find soft body fossils. Maybe the statement isn't true? Is it a problem?
2. What do you think of this statement ? " With more than forty such phyla disappearing and zero new ones appearing ".

3. The idea of the survival of the fittest: The first change of ape to man I have heard was standing more erect. I was wondering why that was an advantage: doesn't it make us slower and less able to climb trees? Isn't mans greatest advantage over the ape our intelligence and that is a macro-evolutionary phenomena: it isn't a small step. I also wonder why the ape wasn't replaced by early man if we truly had an advantage. I look at the fossils record, with my limited knowledge, and I wonder: What advantage did an elephant have over say a mammoth. The whole fossil records makes no sense to me.

I have equal number of questions to creationist? How does the fossil record fit with our world view? There does seam, in a big picture look, that there is a gradual increase in sophistication with the fossil record.? I put down that I am old earth creationist because the fossil record doesn't seam to square with new earth creationism?

#37 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:19 AM

Wow,  I have a lot to learn.  I am going to buy a book and start learning more.  Do you have a beginner book that you would recommend?  Jamesf supplied some technical articles that I will attempt  to read soon (if it is not too jargon rich for me).

I have many Danish friends.  I work with a Danish Company called "Halder Topsoe" which makes catalyst.  Have you heard of the company?

Cheers,

Bruce

View Post

As for books, I really don't know where to begin. What I would like you to do (but of course that is because I want to convince you :) ), is to find some literature on methods. It is all very interesting to look at theories and such, but as long as somebody can go in and say "ahh, it's all non-scientific speculation and opinions", you are really none the wiser. So I think you should, for instance, read about dating methods, excavating methods, how to identify and reconstruct fossils, and such. Once you know more of the science behind it all, you are much better equipped to make a decision.

Yes, I know that company. I work in another Danish company with a lot of international connections, Novo Nordisk.

Hans

#38 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:38 AM

Hans, its been 100% my experience that the only people who do not want to nitpick over theory and proof are die hard  evolutionists who like to argue with christians on the internet. Semantics are important, and when it comes to a legal case, and that's what this principally is, we must fight over them.


I realize that in your country, there has been some legal controversies on this subject, but I prefer to leave that to the professionals.

I've spoken with numerous peopel over the years from PhD physicists to degreed engineers, and they all agree that evolution is not really science, simply because its not demonstrable.


I have to disagree. Evloution is supported by scientific methods.

I wonder if your the same way face-to-face....


Which way?

Sure, but discovery is made through the scientific method, and that means that if we are going to call it scientific evidence that it must be able to be reproduced in real time.


That will be disappointing news to a lot of scientists. Kidding aside, there are lots of scientific theories that cannot be reproduced in real time. Just think of astronomy, geology, nuclear physics. ... And evoution :) .

What distinguishes something as science is the methods used.

Origins science is not really science, and it does not mattter what side of the fence you sit on.  Many of the so called "facts" in origins science are not facts at all.  They are just inferences derived from what is observed, but those inferences are subject to the frame of reference someone interprets the data from, and can be just as wrong as they are right.


OK, we need to nitpick after all :) . Now, if I say "I have a withness saying Joe's car is red", then that is a fact. Not that Joe's car is red, but that I have a withness saying so. The withness may be wrong, however.

The same with scientific theories. The ToE (and abiogenesis theory) builds on a lot of facts. The conclusion on those facts, however, is open for discussion.

That makes them philopophical determinations, and not scientific evidence, and that's why evolution is principally religous in nature.


I disagree. ToE builds on scientific facts. We have a wealth of observational facts. That does not make ToE a fact in itself, but it is a valid scientific theory.

Hans

#39 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:01 AM

Hi James,

This is from discovery institute about Cambrian:
Questions:
1.  Based on the statement "The sudden and simultaneous appearance of more than
70 complex animal phyla" is true:  Then where did all the fossils go that should be precursors to each of these phyla?  We certainly use microscopes and find soft body fossils.  Maybe the statement isn't true? Is it a problem?
2.  What do you think of this statement ? " With more than forty such phyla disappearing and zero new ones appearing ". 


I think we must remember that we are looking at dissembled jig-saw pieces that are 300+ million years old. To make an absolute statement like the one above is just as wrong as an evolutionist pointing at a row seemingly related fossils and stating absolutely that this is an evolving chain. Also, "sudden and simultaneous" in this case refers to an era of some 20 million years.

3.  The idea of the survival of the fittest:  The first change of ape to man I have heard was standing more erect.  I was wondering why that was an advantage: doesn't it make us slower and less able to climb trees?  Isn't mans greatest advantage over the ape our intelligence and that is a macro-evolutionary phenomena: it isn't a small step.  I also wonder why the ape wasn't replaced by early man if we truly had an advantage.


The current theories about the origin of man, which build on properties of fossils, position of fossils, and the concurrent geological record, link the appearance of early hominids with the gradual opening of the Great Rift Valley in East Africa. This geological event opened up new open grass-land plains. Apes migrating into this habitat had more advantage of the upright gait than those that stayed in the forests. For a plain-living animal (and they were still animals), the elevated view and the better running abilities (man is the fastest and longest running primate) gave them an advantage.

Once living on the plains, where hunting became more important (primates thrive poorly on grass, and fruits were scarce on the plains), a creature without the weapons of original predators, would need to develope their own and learn to cooperate during the hunt (chimps also do this, to a degree); this favored a bigger brain.

As for why apes were not replaced, well, they are well adapted for living in the forests, so...

I look at the fossils record, with my limited knowledge, and I wonder:  What advantage did an elephant have over say a mammoth.  The whole fossil records makes no sense to me.


The elephant and the mammoth live/lived in different habitats. The mammoth is a tundra animal, african elephants are tropical savannah animals, and the indian elephant is a tropical forest animal. The mammoth was not pressed out by modern elephants; it became extinct either because its special habitat changed, or, as some researchers think, it was hunted to extinction by humans.

Hans

#40 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2007 - 01:11 PM

I would argue that there are a large host of facts - many thousands. For paleontologists, we have facts like
1. The distribution of animal types in the Cambrian layers.
  2. The differences between these types and the types found in different Cambrian sites around the world.
3. The kinds of fossils that have NEVER been found. e.g., no bones, no teeth, no fish, no pollen, no land plants, no land animals etc.
4. The kinds of fossils found in the layers immediately below the Cambrian (the Ediacaran fossils I showed above).
  5. The changes in these fossils between the lower layers and the upper layers of the Cambrian.
  6. The fact that for almost all the layers below the Ediacaran layers (often thousands of feet),we find only single cell life.



All of that is fine, but you easily, quicly, and hastily over look one fact that makes your conclusion out of all of that erroneous.

IF NDT is true, then a logicla demand is that we see the gradual build up to all of what takes place in the Cambrian Explosion. I.e. the term Cambrian Exloposion is in and of itself a contradiction to NDT. Checkmate, Q.E.D, or let's jus say "That's the end of the argument".


I can't say I agree with this. Controversy almost always occurs when there is more than one answer (Just ask my wife!). It almost never occurs when there are no answers. I certainly don't think you would say that the current debate regarding creationism in America is because creationists have no answers. Would you?


I know that this is lost on most modern thinkers, but if two people strongly disagrree on the something like this, then one of them IS be wrong.

And for all intensive purpose, in cases such as there there is a high probablity that they are BOTH wrong.

But yes, there remains debate in the scientific community regarding the Cambrian animals - and this is primarily because there are several answers championed by different scientists. Scientists are busy looking looking for fossils that might help to discriminate these different answers.
They are:

1. The Cambrian animals evolved quickly (e.g., in a brief 20 million years) from a single Metazoan animal. If so, can we find fossils that show this?


Not found, and as already mentioned, this in and of itself contradicts NDT.

2. The Cambrian animals evolved from the Ediacaran animals. If so, can we find animals that are a mix of these two types (e.g., between Spriggia and the trilobites).

3. Before the Cambrian, these animals were microscopic and the availability of both minerals and oxygen allowed for an increase in size and shell structure in the Cambrian.

4. Did the Cambrian animals evolve in a relatively small area on the earth that has not yet been found, then spread around the earth after they became successful?  Several lines of research support this.

5. Can the genetic differences between modern phyla point to a date when the phyla first diverged? Some say that this line argues that the phyla diverged 600 million to 900 million years ago. Others disagree.


Keep dreaming.....

So overall, there are a number of answers, but the fact that there are several answers does not mean that that we have no answers. If you asked me whether LSU or Kansas will win the National Championship I would say I don't know (I am actually cheering for West Virgina). But the fact that I don't know does not imply that Syracuse has a chance (with 2 wins and 9 losses).


Yes, and the answer is that God created them. Its more logical, and fits the sudden appearance of life than NDT which predicts that what is seen in the pre-cambrian must be a slow tranistion from single-celled organism to all of the complex body plans, not to mention eye-lenses, that exist.


Terry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users