Natural selection wrong due to cambrian explosion

[futurezoologist]

Perhaps your geologic timescale needs adjustment.

No AFJ. Being a geological time scale this explosion you are talking about occurred over a millions of years it, in a geological time scale- sudden = a very very long time.I don't see whats so hard to understand about that-considering these organisms bred and therefore evolved much faster, as they became multicellular they grew slower and therefore bred slower and evolved slower so we get a logarithmic shaped curve.



gamila, you seem to think that it is easy to find a match of species hundreds of millions of years ago(600mil=189216000000000 seconds!) that have had millions of years to evolve, and who's generations are hundreds of times faster than ours(therefore hundreds of times faster evolution). It is not easy. As AFJ said we find it hard to profile DNA after a few weeks let alone match two organisms which lived hundreds of millions of years ago. When we have the tools to do such a thing, i assure you, we will do it.

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.

Sorry forgot to reference quote.
-http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/285/5430/1025
(would have loved to see the whole article so i could tell u what markers they found but it costs >.<)
Finding chemical markers is a lot less complicated that profiling DNA...The chemical evidence they found was 2-methylhopanes.
read: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/c ... ent-rocks/

Edit: Go Western Australia!

[gamila]

gamila, you seem to think that it is easy to find a match of species hundreds of millions of years ago

just give us the precambrian fossils that link the cambrian organisms with a evolutuionary history
as dawkins note the cambrian organism just appeared with no evolutionary history
darwin stated that this made his views wrong
you say science is based on evidence well we have the cambrian evidence
so you give us the precambrian evidence that link the cambrian organisms with a evolutuionary history

[futurezoologist]

Wow, since its evident that you didn't read it, or just ignored it I'm going to copy and paste.

Perhaps your geologic timescale needs adjustment.

No AFJ. Being a geological time scale this explosion you are talking about occurred over a millions of years it, in a geological time scale- sudden = a very very long time.I don't see whats so hard to understand about that-considering these organisms bred and therefore evolved much faster, as they became multicellular they grew slower and therefore bred slower and evolved slower so we get a logarithmic shaped curve.



gamila, you seem to think that it is easy to find a match of species hundreds of millions of years ago(600mil=189216000000000 seconds!) that have had millions of years to evolve, and who's generations are hundreds of times faster than ours(therefore hundreds of times faster evolution). It is not easy. As AFJ said we find it hard to profile DNA after a few weeks let alone match two organisms which lived hundreds of millions of years ago. When we have the tools to do such a thing, i assure you, we will do it.

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.

Sorry forgot to reference quote.
-http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/285/5430/1025
(would have loved to see the whole article so i could tell u what markers they found but it costs >.<)
Finding chemical markers is a lot less complicated that profiling DNA...The chemical evidence they found was 2-methylhopanes.
read: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/c ... ent-rocks/

Edit: Go Western Australia!

[gamila]

LOOK IT IS SIMPLE JUST GIVING THE LINKING FOSSILS EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS AN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY FOR THE CAMBRIAN ORGANISMS


i have asked a simple question
just give the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
not precambrain fossils
but
the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
since as dawkins notes
in the cambrian period we get an explosion of new organism with no evolutionary history

LOOK IT IS SIMPLE JUST GIVING THE LINKING FOSSILS EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS AN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY FOR THE CAMBRIAN ORGANISMS

[futurezoologist]

LOOK IT IS SIMPLE JUST GIVING THE LINKING FOSSILS EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS AN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY FOR THE CAMBRIAN ORGANISMS

I think you will find(as stated in the above post) that it is quite far from "SIMPLE".

It may infact be the opposite of simple, with organisms this old all we have left from them are chemicals which are known to be made by that certain type of organism, we cannot analyze DNA or even see the structure of the organism so how (with current technology) are we able to get this evidence, please explain to me.

[Gavin]

Hi Colin. Remember me? We've met before. I see you have found another forum to pollute. I came across this forum quite by accident but quickly recognised you. Same old stuff, I see.

A note to the members of this forum: Colin (aka gamila) has been doing this sort of thing for years. He invariably gets banned, then moves on. You're just the latest. The guy's not stupid, just not quite all there, if you get my meaning. You're certainly free to continue with these "discussions" if:

1) you're stupid
2) not quite all there
3) have nothing better to do
4) am having fun

Back to you Colin: I'll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.

Till we meet again.

Gavin

[gamila]

I'll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.

good

[Jasper903]

At the risk of being a spammer myself, I must say that answering gamila the first couple of times is quite understandable, but by now you must surely have realized that continuing to do so only prompts him to submit yet another post or start another thread with the exact same underlying theme. The best thing thing to do is to boycott him.

[papa1983]

Gamilia, I don't appreciate how you take Richard Dawkins words out of context. After the paragraph you site in "The Blind Watchmaker", Richard Dawkins goes on to say

"Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.
Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."

Many of the previous replies to your question mention this very idea. Yes there is very few fossiles before the so-called "Cambrian Explosion". This "explosion" could be due to a large number of organisms evolving bodies that can be fossilized that were previously soft bodied. With the lack of fossils from pre-cambrian times it is difficult to link any organisms living at that time to organisms living during Cambrian times using the fossil record. So you seem to be asking the wrong question.

Perhaps a better an more open question would be, "Is there _any_ evidence that species living during Cambrian times have common ancestors who lived during pre-Cambrian times?"

And I'm sure more of these members would be more than happy to answer a question like that.

Evolution or Natural Selection isn't just based off the fossil record (thank god). There is evidence for it in genetics and it has been observed in action.

[gamila]

Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.
Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."

all dawkins has is a MIGHT BE
that is just nothing more than an explanation
creationists have their explanation
i could say that martians genetically enginered us
fact is
as dawkins says

It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history

that is the fact
all else he says is speculation
Gould even says
that is the fact
all else is just speculative explanation

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.)”

dawkins speculates

One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."

but the fact is soft-bodied creatures did fossilize from precambrian

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/far ... paleo2.htm

The Proterozoic Eon covers the time span from 2.5 billion to 544 million years ago.

All known Proterozoic animal fossils had soft body parts: no shells or hard (and hence preservable as fossils) parts

[q

[papa1983]

Yeah, it is possible for soft creatures to be fossilized, it just doesn't happen as often as hard creatures. It is difficult to find common ancestors of Cambrian organisms in Pre-Cambrian fossils because there just aren't that many. Evolution isn't based on the fossil record only. The Cambrian Explosion is something we don't have all the answers to and there needs to be more research in that area. But that fact doesn't refute evolution by mutation and natural selection.
If you have a better way of explaining how all the species on earth came about I'd like to see it.

[gamila]

If you have a better way of explaining how all the species on earth came about I'd like to see it.

i have none
fact is though natural selection is shown to be wrong by colin leslie dean


http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf
'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG'