Evidence for God from Science

The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of fossil evidence charachterized by hard body parts. Hard body parts are favorible to fossil creation. Prior to this fossil evidence is scarce due to the soft bodied nature of Pre-Cambrian lifeforms.

This thread is in responce to AttentionKMartShoppers discussions on the Cambrian Explosion. Now to the quotes.

All the known phyla, except one, along with the oddities with which I began this discussion, first appear in the Cambrian period.

Cnideria, Sponges and other unknown organisms existed prior to the Cambrian. It is important to note that prior to photosynthetic organisms oxygen was most likely not prevalent in the atmostphere or oceanic environment. In fact oxygen is poisonous to biological processes.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:OH and here's the pain...and there are fish!-

This necessity of gradualism explains the difficulty evolutionists have concerning the Cambrian explosion or Evolution's Big Bang, as Time magazine called it. How could animals as diverse as arthropods, molluscs, jellyfish, and even primitive vertebrates all appear within a time span of only 5-10 million years with no ancestors and no intermediates?

There are no fish, unless one considers jellyfish as fish. Which of course they are not. There is also evidence that jellyfish existed prior to the cambrian explosion. One should note here that Time magazine's article was an attempt to put into lay terms what the latest theories at the time were regarding the Cambrian explosion.

Apparently, the most significant biological changes in the history of the earth occurred in less than ten million years, and for 500 million years afterward, this level of change never happened again. Why not? This may seem like a simple question, but it is far more complicated than it appears.

This can only be concluded if one focuses on phyla. Yes the many body types did appear in the Cambrian however the diversification was only in its infant stages. In the next 500 million years we have a simple chordate,http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/images/c.pikaia.gif diversify into Lampreys, Bony Fish, Sharks, Amphibians, Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds. This appears to be a more significant and complicated change. In fact it is good to note that Pikaia (The Cambrian representative of chordates) was originally beleived to be a segmented worm. It was not until further analysis that it was shown to have a notochord. Making this a transitional form to actual vertabrates!

Now a question to KMart.
To pinpoint the cambrian explosion as a creation event while acknowledging there were organisms prior to the event implies multiple creation events does it not? What of the diversification of life after the Cambrian. Are these creation events as well?

The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of fossil evidence charachterized by hard body parts. Hard body parts are favorible to fossil creation. Prior to this fossil evidence is scarce due to the soft bodied nature of Pre-Cambrian lifeforms.

Uh, sorry...but as you say a few seconds later, we have jellyfish, a soft-bodied organism, as well as worms, appear before the Cambrian. So your excuse holds as much water as a punctured balloon.

Cnideria, Sponges and other unknown organisms existed prior to the Cambrian. It is important to note that prior to photosynthetic organisms oxygen was most likely not prevalent in the atmostphere or oceanic environment. In fact oxygen is poisonous to biological processes.

If they're unknown organisms...then how do we know about them? And, oxygen isn't toxic to biological processess-to pre-biological processes that you hope made life, yes, but much life requires oxygen-it's a key component in chemical reactions (for first hand experience of this, place paper bag over heard...).

There are no fish, unless one considers jellyfish as fish. Which of course they are not. There is also evidence that jellyfish existed prior to the cambrian explosion. One should note here that Time magazine's article was an attempt to put into lay terms what the latest theories at the time were regarding the Cambrian explosion.

My article said fish, you're saying no fish...uh, ok...

This can only be concluded if one focuses on phyla. Yes the many body types did appear in the Cambrian however the diversification was only in its infant stages. In the next 500 million years we have a simple chordate,http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/images/c.pikaia.gif diversify into Lampreys, Bony Fish, Sharks, Amphibians, Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds. This appears to be a more significant and complicated change. In fact it is good to note that Pikaia (The Cambrian representative of chordates) was originally beleived to be a segmented worm. It was not until further analysis that it was shown to have a notochord. Making this a transitional form to actual vertabrates!

The diversification was in its infant stages? We don't have infant fossils, or trasitional fossils-we have fossils of animals with no ancestral relationship to each other appearing suddenly within 5-10 million years. Darwin's explanation doesn't fit, and Gould's explanation doesn't fit either. And you're refuting this by talking about your belief that a chordate evolved into fish, sharks, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and eventually mammals...WITh NO EVIDENCE. There are no transitional forms briding these monstrously large gaps, so stop stating these things as self-evident facts.

Infant Stage...no-if you will notice, we don't have diversification-we have the sudden appearance of most of the phylums...


And I don't know what your final question has to do with what I've been saying, about many creation events...so explain.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Infant Stage...no-if you will notice, we don't have diversification-we have the sudden appearance of most of the phylums...

Did you read my post at all? The various representatives of the phylums at this point were nothing more than related morphologies which through time have evolved into starkly contrasting and distinct forms.
Look at the fossils, not the charts. What the chart doesn't show you is at the bottom of the lineage is a segmented worm like creature and at the top is the bald eagle.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of fossil evidence charachterized by hard body parts. Hard body parts are favorible to fossil creation. Prior to this fossil evidence is scarce due to the soft bodied nature of Pre-Cambrian lifeforms.

Uh, sorry...but as you say a few seconds later, we have jellyfish, a soft-bodied organism, as well as worms, appear before the Cambrian. So your excuse holds as much water as a punctured balloon.

Heh, read carefully, fossil evidence is scarce not non-existant.

Cnideria, Sponges and other unknown organisms existed prior to the Cambrian. It is important to note that prior to photosynthetic organisms oxygen was most likely not prevalent in the atmostphere or oceanic environment. In fact oxygen is poisonous to biological processes.

If they're unknown organisms...then how do we know about them? And, oxygen isn't toxic to biological processess-to pre-biological processes that you hope made life, yes, but much life requires oxygen-it's a key component in chemical reactions (for first hand experience of this, place paper bag over heard...)

They are unknown in that it is dificult to identify or classify them. This oxygen topic requires another thread.

There are no fish, unless one considers jellyfish as fish. Which of course they are not. There is also evidence that jellyfish existed prior to the cambrian explosion. One should note here that Time magazine's article was an attempt to put into lay terms what the latest theories at the time were regarding the Cambrian explosion.

My article said fish, you're saying no fish...uh, ok...

No, I am having trouble finding it would you please show me where it sais fish?
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bigbang.html

This can only be concluded if one focuses on phyla. Yes the many body types did appear in the Cambrian however the diversification was only in its infant stages. In the next 500 million years we have a simple chordate,http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/images/c.pikaia.gif diversify into Lampreys, Bony Fish, Sharks, Amphibians, Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds. This appears to be a more significant and complicated change. In fact it is good to note that Pikaia (The Cambrian representative of chordates) was originally beleived to be a segmented worm. It was not until further analysis that it was shown to have a notochord. Making this a transitional form to actual vertabrates!

The diversification was in its infant stages? We don't have infant fossils, or trasitional fossils-we have fossils of animals with no ancestral relationship to each other appearing suddenly within 5-10 million years. Darwin's explanation doesn't fit, and Gould's explanation doesn't fit either.

I never said infant fossils, but we have fossils. Look at them the various representatives of the phyla are not morphologically distict at this time. I can only put it this way. If given only the organisms of the Cambrian period the various organisms would not even have belonged to different orders!

And you're refuting this by talking about your belief that a chordate evolved into fish, sharks, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and eventually mammals...WITh NO EVIDENCE. There are no transitional forms briding these monstrously large gaps, so stop stating these things as self-evident facts.

lol this is from your article which is based on scientific evidence. Please take a look

Whoa! . . . you say! And just what is a phyla? Well, if you think way back to high school biology, phyla is actually the plural form of phylum, a Latin term designating a large category of biological classification. The largest category of classification is the Kingdom. We all know about the Animal and Plant Kingdoms. Well, Phylum is the next category below Kingdom. The Animal Kingdom consists of such well known phyla as the molluscs which contains clams, oysters, and snails. Another commonly known phylum is the annelids to which belong the earthworms. The largest of all phyla is the arthropods. Arthropods range from insects to millipedes to spiders to shrimp. We are placed in the phylum Chordata along with all other vertebrates, the fish, amphibians, reptiles, and other mammals. Representatives from different phyla are very different creatures.

As to where it says fish:

How could animals as diverse as arthropods, molluscs, jellyfish, and even primitive vertebrates all appear within a time span of only 5-10 million years with no ancestors and no intermediates?

Heh, read carefully, fossil evidence is scarce not non-existant.

I didn't say it was non-existent, I was bringing up the fact that there were jellyfish and works pre-Cambrian...

They are unknown in that it is dificult to identify or classify them. This oxygen topic requires another thread.

They are unknown because they don't exist..

lol this is from your article which is based on scientific evidence. Please take a look

Ah, the diversification of ONE phylum, though...you were referring to diversification into all, or almost all, phylums in a short amount of time.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:As to where it says fish:

How could animals as diverse as arthropods, molluscs, jellyfish, and even primitive vertebrates all appear within a time span of only 5-10 million years with no ancestors and no intermediates?

That states jellyfish not fish.
jellyfish
fish
Not the same. Fish have bones and eyes and brains and...

Heh, read carefully, fossil evidence is scarce not non-existant.

I didn't say it was non-existent, I was bringing up the fact that there were jellyfish and works pre-Cambrian...

So first jellyfish and sponges were created and then trilobites and brachiopods? And later Fish? And then Sharks created? How many times did creation happen?

They are unknown in that it is dificult to identify or classify them. This oxygen topic requires another thread.

They are unknown because they don't exist..

No the fossils exist, but if all you had to go on were a few impressions in the sediment could you tell me what it came from?
Heres a link you can see that they do exist.Look a jellyfish!
evidence of burrowing worms?

lol this is from your article which is based on scientific evidence. Please take a look

Ah, the diversification of ONE phylum, though...you were referring to diversification into all, or almost all, phylums in a short amount of time.

No, I was refering to the fact that the author is skewing the words. He is trying to make it seem like fish and worms and clams and lobsters appeared fully fromed out of nowhere. The Chart shows that the ansestors of these forms originated in the Cambrian. The primative forms. The chart is based on the fossil evidence, don't you want to look at the fossils?

Oops, I used edit->search and typed in fish...LOL, my bad.

No, I was refering to the fact that the author is skewing the words. He is trying to make it seem like fish and worms and clams and lobsters appeared fully fromed out of nowhere. The Chart shows that the ansestors of these forms originated in the Cambrian. The primative forms. The chart is based on the fossil evidence, don't you want to look at the fossils?

They...do-the supposed ancestors have no transitional links to them-you have no transitions from their supposed ancestors.

And, I never said I thought the fossil record was a perfect record of life on earth...I just said it contradicts evolution.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Oops, I used edit->search and typed in fish...LOL, my bad.

No, I was refering to the fact that the author is skewing the words. He is trying to make it seem like fish and worms and clams and lobsters appeared fully fromed out of nowhere. The Chart shows that the ansestors of these forms originated in the Cambrian. The primative forms. The chart is based on the fossil evidence, don't you want to look at the fossils?

They...do-the supposed ancestors have no transitional links to them-you have no transitions from their supposed ancestors.

And, I never said I thought the fossil record was a perfect record of life on earth...I just said it contradicts evolution.

If you're calling these primative forms "supposed ancestors", why are you even making a big deal that many phyla appeared at once?
By taking away the possible link of these primative forms to todays forms all you have left is a lot of primative forms appeared in the cambrian.

Am I correct?

If I'm readin' you right...you have a problem...because, according to evolution, every organism evolved from another one, and you work your way back to the original cell(s)...but, with the representatives of almost all animal phylum...you have none of these ancestors...Darwin's evolution tree becomes a front lawn. And that's why it's a big deal and I'm targeting it.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:If I'm readin' you right...you have a problem...because, according to evolution, every organism evolved from another one, and you work your way back to the original cell(s)...but, with the representatives of almost all animal phylum...you have none of these ancestors...Darwin's evolution tree becomes a front lawn. And that's why it's a big deal and I'm targeting it.

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.

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.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:If I'm readin' you right...you have a problem...because, according to evolution, every organism evolved from another one, and you work your way back to the original cell(s)...but, with the representatives of almost all animal phylum...you have none of these ancestors...Darwin's evolution tree becomes a front lawn. And that's why it's a big deal and I'm targeting it.

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.

Sorry if I'm coming in on topics perhaps already done, but I would like to add that although we may not have the full fossil record before us, there are many who believe certain portions to be complete. Was not seeing gaps in the fossil record the reason why a theory such as punctuated equilibrium was proposed? For example, Eldredge wrote:

"Standard evolutionary theory focuses on anatomical change through time by picturing natural selection as the agent that preserves the best of the designs available for coping with the environment. This generation by generation process, working on small amounts of variation, is thought to change, slowly but inexorably, the genetic and anatomical makeup of a population.

If this theory were correct, then I should have found evidence of this smooth progression in the vast numbers of Bolivian fossil trilobites I studied. I should have found species gradually changing through time, with smoothly intermediate forms connecting descendant species to their ancestors.

Instead I found most of the various kinds, including some unique and advanced ones, present in the earliest known fossil beds. Species persisted for long periods of time without change. When they were replaced by similar, related (presumably descendant) species, I saw no gradual change in the older species that would have allowed me to predict the anatomical features of its younger relative.

The story of anatomical change through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or not change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendants, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence.

If the evidence conflicts with theoretical predictions, something must be wrong with the theory. But for years the apparent lack of progressive change within fossil species has been ignored or else the evidence--not the theory--has been attacked. Attempts to salvage evolutionary theory have been made by claiming that the pattern of stepwise change usually seen in fossils reflects a poor, spotty fossil record. Were the record sufficiently complete, goes the claim, we would see the expected pattern of stepwise graduational change. But there are too many examples of this pattern of stepwise change to ignore it any longers. It is time to reexamine evolutionary theory itself.

There is probably little wrong with the notion of natural selection as a means of modifying the genetics of a species through time, although it is difficult to put it to the test. But the predicted gradual accumulation of change within species is seldom (if ever) encountered in our practical experience with the fossil record."

(Niles Eldredge, "An Extravagance of Species")

Another scientist, Dr. Donald Prothero points out that "Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode."—http://www.skeptic.com/oldsite/01.3.pro ... nc-eq.html

It seems to me that many try arguing for a gradual form of evolution based on the fossil record, even though in Prothero's words, such a fit is "forced" and out of step with biologists (although I think the latter is embelished since I'm sure many biologists still accept gradualism). Yet, I can understand why some would still persist with upholding gradualism since it does certainly sound more plausible than a sudden burst of changes popping up in one go.

Kurieuo

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

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:If I'm readin' you right...you have a problem...because, according to evolution, every organism evolved from another one, and you work your way back to the original cell(s)...but, with the representatives of almost all animal phylum...you have none of these ancestors...Darwin's evolution tree becomes a front lawn. And that's why it's a big deal and I'm targeting it.

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.

We may not have the full fossil record before us, but there are many who believe certain portions to be complete. Was not see gaps in the record the reason why a theory such as punctuated equilibrium was proposed?
It seems to me that many try arguing for a gradual form of evolution based on the fossil record, even though in Prothero's words, such a fit is "forced" and out of step with biologists (although I think the latter is embelished since I'm sure many biologists still accept gradualism). Yet, I can understand why some would still persist with upholding gradualism since it does certainly sound more plausible than a sudden burst of changes popping up in one go.

Kurieuo

This is correct from a biological perspective and from fossil evidence that gradual evolution cannot be the case. And this original beleif doesn't even make sence when you think about it. A vestige of lamarckian evolution no doubt. In any case the book is not closed on evolution, not by a long shot.

One can imagine that organisms change over time but it should be obvious that change cannot be restricted to the organism itself.

(In politics when a nation suddenly has increased military capability it can cause surrounding nations to scramble as the balance of power has been shifted.)

Likewise introduce a new advantagous mutation and suddenly the balance of power is off kilter. A beneficial mutation will have repurcussions throughout the entire biota.

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.

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.

There are of course other causes such as mass extinction which can lead to a sudden "power" vacuum.

Also in this model mutations occur through extended periods of time but with no pressures acting on them they continue to build up. Many of the chemical processes which occur in our bodies are actually different from individual to individual. Our bodies are like chemistry sets with each set being slightly different. A new ingredient can cause a cascade of changes, leading to unpredictable results. This in turn can lead to morphological or chemical changes throughout the organism, causing internal pressure to adapt. As the lineage stabilizes a new species is born.
(This can be likened to the industrial revolution, or the discovery of iron smelting, it forced societies to rebuild and reorganize itself.) It helps to think of each organism as a self contained colony of unicellular organisms.

Of course these are all just theories, built around current understanding of the fossil evidence and biological and chemical processes.