What is the Cambrian Explosion

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

Kurieuo wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So what is the alternative theory? Are there two creation events, one for the precambrian forms and then again for the cambrian forms? And then I suppose since you reject evolution, that each subsequent form was then a result of another creation event. And if you take a good look at the fossil evidence, you may also notice that complexity is not necessarily increasing as time progresses. If you look real close you may even realize that new forms are similar to previous existing forms. At points of mass extinction you can clearly see that new forms are similar to body plans from the previous era.
The creation theory you touch upon here is known as Progressive Creationism. It is what I personally advocate, and for those who take Scripture seriously it falls inline with the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis.

Kurieuo
This like ID is not contrary to evolution. It appears to be a valid theory of evolution. However it is not a scientific theory of evolution.

Perhaps I understood it incorrectly but I don't see any contradictions between the two theories either.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:The creation theory you touch upon here is known as Progressive Creationism. It is what I personally advocate, and for those who take Scripture seriously it falls inline with the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis.

Kurieuo
This like ID is not contrary to evolution. It appears to be a valid theory of evolution. However it is not a scientific theory of evolution.
Plausible changes that occur within an animals own genetic makeup (e.g., the finches beak), or mutations within the more simple micro-level life (e.g., viruses/ bacteria), or similar simple changes are certainly not contrary to divine creation of any form.

Evolutionary changes "guided" by mutations and natural selection which naturally lead from very distinct species to others, increasing in massive amounts of new specified genetic code, would not fit into Progressive Creationism (PC) however. Unlike ID a whole lot more is said about who the "Designer" is within PC, and also the method they chose to create (i.e., direct creations of new life over time). There was a cool timeline chart mapping out creation events at Reasons to Believe, although it has currently been taken down to update. I see no inconsistency between this scenario and empirical facts gathered within science. Infact when GodandScience.org uses the slogan, "Harmony between the Bible and science," the model and ideas as proposed by Reasons to Believe are the ones that are essentially advocated. Although of course many who advocate philosophical naturalism (which is rife within the sciences today, although I believe this is changing) would as with ID, find such harmony between God and science with the theistic implications quite distasteful.

ID on the other hand is more broad and vague not commenting on the "Designer" or how the designer decided to create. It allows for Theistic Evolution wherein the Designer could have rigged life in the very beginning to have unfolded so amazingly and seemingly purposefully. So you are correct to say ID can be compatible with evolution, but then the evolution usually advocated is one that says everything unfolded without any "real" purpose and without divine involvement. In this fuller extent, ID is incompatible with evolution. As mentioned at the Discovery Institute (an ID website) in a FAQ:
2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Perhaps I understood it incorrectly but I don't see any contradictions between the two theories either.
Hopefully this post has helped to clarify.

Kurieuo
Last edited by Kurieuo on Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Imagine what it must have been like when photosynthesis began poisoning the atmostphere with oxygen. All existing life would be threatened with extinction. Faced with this extraordinary pressure the lucky few who could cope would be the only ones to survive.
Just to give some perspective... Evolution proponents will often cite facts that the life arising within more harsh (or different) environments, is evidence of that fact that such life evolved to adapt to their environments. For example, as you picture the lucky few how coped with oxygen in the atmosphere. On the other hand, you have creation proponents such as myself who simply say life died out previously and new life was created by God under the new environmental conditions that evolved during Earth's life.

The thing I want to highlight is that both these scenarios fit with the facts. Although the burden of proof is perhaps on the creationist, since seemly a natural process is simpler and so by Ockham's principle ought to be rationally chosen. Yet, then I believe the burden is also placed back on the naturalist with what I see are some very solid arguments put forward by creationists. For example, citing evidence for the fact life become extinct several times over in Earth's early life due to sterilization events such as asteroid impacts. Yet, on various occasions life suddenly arose several times over. Thus, the creationist will say you aren't looking at the probability of life occurring once (yes I know origins of life this isn't "evolution" per se, but it does go hand-in-hand with a naturalist accounting of life and its diversity), but life beginning from scratch several times over. Evidence such is this, is what creationists like myself will point to in order to claim that the hypothesis of a progressive creation over time appears to explain with the data more easily. Of course it can be claimed that the creationist is positing a "god of the gaps," yet if the problems for a naturalist scenario only appear to get worse or harder to solve as our knowledge increases, I believe the widening of the gap perhaps points to a true gap in our natural knowledge.

Yet, in the end, the naturalist will stick to their guns not choosing to entertain for some reason or another the remote possibility of an entity so absurd and hideous to them as God. On the other hand, the theist will continue to see the significant evidence which points to the implausibility of any natural accounting. I suppose we will find out with certainty upon death, that is unless the naturalist is right, in which case it won't really matter what we believed since when we die there will be nothing further. ;)
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Imagine what chaos it must have been when predatory forms first came into being. Now this one gets tricky because predatory organisms depend on their prey so overly successful forms would have decimated local populations resulting in their own demise. I can imagine predation occuring multiple times. And I can imagine defensive mechanisms to appear suddenly allowing predation to be maintainable. And the ensuing arms war to follow would lead to interesting forms.

Imagine also what it must have been like for mobility to surpass these defensive mechanisms. As bony fishes began dominating the seas and quickly moved up to the top of the food chain.
Yes, I can imagine everything as you say, and it certainly is a romantic and fascinating view to have. However, when I come to think about the steps, or how such things could have happened in reality, I frankly can not fathom how such things could have naturally occurred. I honestly can't see any detailed natural mechanism proposed by science as to how such competitive scenarios could have actually occurred. There are vague suggestions on certain mechanisms, which perhaps certainly make it much more easier to "imagine" such survival of the fittest scenarios. But when the exact mechanism(s) of how evolution occurred still poses a major question (e.g., see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), I am just helpless in even trying to choose to believe it can really happen naturally as imagined. Perhaps you are just as helpless in trying to choose to believe my creation beliefs. Certainly both seem logically plausible, but I suppose this is something that will remain debatable for centuries to come or until the end of time.

Kurieuo
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

Kurieuo wrote:Certainly both seem logically plausible, but I suppose this is something that will remain debatable for centuries to come or until the end of time.
Kurieuo
Kurieuo, thank you for clarifying some points.
=)
I just want to add that terms like random mutation, and natural selection, may seem athiestic, but any thiestic observations would not be reproducible or physical so even if they exist are not within the realm of science. Science is an every evolving collaborative effort, like many cartographers mapping out the world. Many young people who adhere to science fail to see this and recognize science as a dogmatic entity, which it is not. When I attended school I read the preface of every science book which stated this fact, I suppose many students today don't pay attention in science enough to realize what science really is. It is a shame because here, in the United States we have a democracy and educated citizens are required to make intelligent decisions regarding policy. But really what we have here seems to two camps of ideologies in which followers blindly follow their leaders. The evidence is there, we should be reaching our own conclusion.

In any case, to conclude, the cambrian explosion does introduce some questions into the mechanisms of evolution.

The Theory Evolution is as a whole is not a completed theory but the best scientific model at this time.

And in no way is the Theory of Evolution "the truth".

As can be seen by Kurieuo's post many things cannot be rulled out.

However the Cambrian period is not the wrench in the gears that many people misunderstand it as.

So be warned when reading some creationist papers regarding this period, the papers can often be misinformed or even misleading. A good example being the paper AttentionKMartShoppers used in this thread.
Last edited by BGoodForGoodSake on Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

Any paper written not saying evolution is a fact and is true is misinformed I'm assuming.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Any paper written not saying evolution is a fact and is true is misinformed I'm assuming.
Its not good to make assumptions.

There was a paleontologist, I forget his name but I will post it here when I remember who had very valid arguments against evolution. And I myself know the theory in incomplete. Those who really understand the idea know that evolution and God is not exclusive.

Its always a good idea to have general understanding of the facts so that you can approch it intelligently.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
Believer
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm
Christian: No
Location: Oregon

Post by Believer »

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Those who really understand the idea know that evolution and God is not exclusive.
Then why make a theory if there is no possible conceivable way that everything just came from nothing for no reason without a divine God?
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

Uh, evolution and God are exclusive-do you not know that two statements, if they contradict each other, cannot be true at the same time? Evolution says life came about naturally without any supernatural aid. Christianity says God made all life...




You can notice they are at odds when the best advocates of evolution, who are just the loudest crybaby woosies, are atheists and attack Christians whenever possible.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

*Drum roll*

Debating Design, from Darwin to DNA, Chapter 20, pg 373, this $50 book was worth it:
Fossil discoveries from the Lower Cambrian Yuanshan Formation in China have also shown the presence of animals from the phylum Chordata, including two fish fossils, Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa and Haikouichthys ercaicunensis, suggesting an earlier appearance for vertebrates than previously thought
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Post by Jbuza »


Without fossil evidence we may never completely peice together this puzzle, however I am sure you can appreciate that, this does not make the rest of the fossil record inadmissable.

Without fossil evidence the picture is simply the imagination of Darwin. The fossil record as it is observed is in fact very admissable evidence, and shows that evolution did not happen.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:*Drum roll*

Debating Design, from Darwin to DNA, Chapter 20, pg 373, this $50 book was worth it:
Fossil discoveries from the Lower Cambrian Yuanshan Formation in China have also shown the presence of animals from the phylum Chordata, including two fish fossils, Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa and Haikouichthys ercaicunensis, suggesting an earlier appearance for vertebrates than previously thought
First lets take a look at the fossils.
Haikouichthys ercaicunensis
ImageImage
This organism appears to have had a single brain structure, notochord and heart!
Heres an artists conception
Image
Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa
ImageImage
There appears to be a dorsal fin and a partial notochord.

Heres an artists conception
Image

There is some dispute how to classify this fish because it cannot be determined that it has a single heart a notochord or even a brain. However it does appear to be some sort of very primative fish.

Heres a primitive worm.
Image
A segmented worm and anatomy.
ImageImage
Heres a modern fish.
Image

Now several things you should consider KMart.
:arrow: What was the purpose of this primative fish? Was it practice?
:arrow: Doesn't this fossil (Haikouichthys) qualify as a primative fish?
:arrow: What are the implications of primative fish?
:arrow: If one follows evolution. Wouldn't one expect novel forms to originate locally and then spread out?
:arrow: Why are these forms absent from the Burgess Shale which is much younger than this rock?
:arrow: Does this implicate that possibily fish originated in this particular region of the world?

Notice also these are chordates which are considered predacessors to vertabrates according to evolution. Not actual vertabrates, ie. no evidence of bones. So if you take evolution out of the picture these are not any fish in the modern sence.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

Oh my goodness, I cite a well known scientists, who cites another scientists...and you tell me I've got worms.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
Post Reply