Natural selection wrong due to cambrian explosion

[gamila]

Natural selection wrong due to cambrian explosion

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG

if evolutuon is via natural selection then the cambrian explosion shows natural selection is wrong

In the cambrian period we get organisms appearing for the first time out of no where with no evolutionary history- even Dawkins admits this

if you disagree with this then give precambrian fossil evidence linking the major cambrian invertebrate groups

if you cant then the cambrian explosion show evolution is not by natural selection

Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just plante there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).

Darwin saw the cambrian explosion as proving his ideas wrong

"Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)

and Gould says nothing has changed since Darwins time

Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Evolution of Life," in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)”

[alextemplet]

Gamila, all of these questions have been dealt with in another thread, and if you wish to consider discussion along those lines, you should go there. Opening several new threads for the same topic is starting to make you look like a spammer.

[gamila]

Gamila, all of these questions have been dealt with in another thread

just give us please the precambrian fossil evidence linking the major cambrian invertebrate groups- not some half backed might be theory- HARD FOSSIL EVEIDENCE

if you cant then the cambrian explosion show evolution is not by natural selection

[Tagra102023]

In the Cambrian explotion there are fossils of all existing phylums. But, all living organisms were still living in the ocean.

Everything was still very primative.

Some reasons why not much was found before then is:

Development of larger organism.

Development of hard bodys/shells/bones

I actuly think the cambrian explotion supports evolution...

[gamila]

Some reasons why not much was found before then is

i asked for hard fossil evidence not some might be explanation
i could say the fossils arnt there as Martians did genetic experiments on the precambrain organisms and they messed up and got an explosion of organsims
that is just as valid as your explanation

[futurezoologist]

Please, gamila, enlighten me on what specifically you cannot see possible about the cambrian explosion, and when contemplating your answer be sure to have an image of an exponential function in your mind.

[alextemplet]

Please, gamila, enlighten me on what specifically you cannot see possible about the cambrian explosion, and when contemplating your answer be sure to have an image of an exponential function in your mind.

Are you trying to imply that we must base our arguments on reason and logic? Why, I have never heard of such a concept! This is truly revolutionary!

[AFJ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]

The main thing I understand about the cambrian explosion is that it is in the primordial strata--rather unexpected in a model (evolution) based on slow gradual build up of sediment and dying organisms over billions of years. A theory that shows an evolutionary tree with all kinds of common ancestors and transitions to modern organisms.

Primordial strata means first or original strata. Here is the strata where many common ancestors are found! Did you know what the common ancestor for a squid is? It is a squid wow! Right there in the primordial strata! Well at least Mr. Darwin-- you were right about a common ancestor--just wasn't the one you needed!

[gamila]

as i said just show me the precambrian fossil evidence linking the major organisms in the cambrian period
dont give me half backed might be explanations
give me fossil evidence-you keep saying science is based on evidence so give it

[futurezoologist]

Brocks et al. now extend the chemical evidence for biomolecules from the previous 1700 million years to 2700 million years, by identifying biomarkers characteristic for cyanobacteria and eukaryotes in Archean rocks from rocks from Western Australia. The results show that a key attribute of eukaryotic physiology had already evolved 2700 million years ago.

[gamila]

i did not ask for precamrian fossil evidence
i asked for precambrian fossil evidence that links the cambrian organisms with a evolutionary history

since as dawkins notes
in the cambrian period we get an explosion of new organism with no evolutionary history

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).

[AFJ]

Yes FZ this is the major point of "explosion." There is no history--a sudden jump from cyanobacteria to fully formed modern animals. Perhaps your geologic timescale needs adjustment.

Cited by future zoologist--no reference
Brocks et al. now extend the chemical evidence for biomolecules from the previous 1700 million years to 2700 million years, by identifying biomarkers characteristic for cyanobacteria and eukaryotes in Archean rocks from rocks from Western Australia. The results show that a key attribute of eukaryotic physiology had already evolved 2700 million years ago.

What kind of chemical biomarkers are you going to find in 2700m year old blue green algae? We can't do a dna profile with weeks old blood, yet we have this kind of chemical evidence? Please specify.