Natural selection is proven wrong

[gamila]

• Quote

Post by gamila » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:27 am

What evidence do you have that the Cambrian explosion was impossible in evolutionary terms?

as dawkins notes organisms appeared with no evolutionary history

[futurezoologist]

• Quote

Post by futurezoologist » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:51 pm

That's not evidence. And now we have found that they do have an evolutionary history.

[gamila]

• Quote

Post by gamila » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:45 am

And now we have found that they do have an evolutionary history.

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/CamExp.html

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms,

the earliest unequivocal paleontological evidence of metazoan life is no more than 600 Ma

as dawkins noted

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

now give us the fossils that link precambrian organisms with the cambrian oranisms with a evolutionary history



http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/CamExp.html
15 Apr 2006

In the strict sense, the explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phylathat had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons. One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time. The other is the Bryozoa, a phylum that contains some soft-bodied groups and may well have been present but not yet skeletonized.

There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism "designs" or "ways of life" – rose sharply in the early Cambrian

Regardless of when the principal metazoan (and other) lineages diverged, early or late, [b]a major radiation certainly did occur in the Cambrian.

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms,

as dawkins noted

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

paleontological evidence does not generally corroborate molecular clock studies which almost invariably indicate animal origins lying very deep within the Proterozoic

There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism "designs" or "ways of life" – rose sharply in the early Cambrian

[b]Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms, and none of the associated or coeval trace fossils has been thought to have been produced by the animals observed more directly. … What the trace fossil record does tell us, is that there were few large, mobile, bottom-dwelling animals before the end of the [Vendian].

Nevertheless, although recent discoveries have greatly extended the record of sponges and bilateral animals, the earliest unequivocal paleontological evidence of metazoan life is no more than 600 Ma(Bromham et al. 1998, p. 12386).

The nature of the last common P-D ancestor (PDA) is explored in Erwin & Davidson 2002 which concludes that the last PDA must have been an extremely simple organism because there is no fossil trace evidence of complex bilaterians prior to 555 Ma, yet the mollusc interpretation of Kimberella requires the PDA to be older than this (though see de Robertis & Sasai 1996 and Holland 2002 for other perspectives).

* The very early evolution of life generally (> 3,500 Ma), and eukaryote life in particular (> 1,200 Ma);



* Molecular and microfossil evidence for an ancient (~ 1,000 Ma) diversification of eukaryotes;



*Our failure to find convincing fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600 Ma;



*The apparently rapid origin of very many crown group metazoans in the ~35 million year interval from ~565 Ma to ~530 Ma (the misnamed Cambrian Explosion);



* The observation that few fundamentally new metazoan body plans (some would say none) have arisen since.

now give us the fossils that link precambrian organisms with the cambrian oranisms with a evolutionary history

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms,

[/quote]

[futurezoologist]

• Quote

Post by futurezoologist » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:10 am

gamila Said
Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms

Done.

That's evidence from you, "Few" suggests that there were some found.

<<Game Over>>

[gamila]

• Quote

Post by gamila » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:24 am

That's evidence from you, "Few" suggests that there were some found.

you dont read do you
it says


the cambrian explosion was an

abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living animal phyla

abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living animal

phyla

One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time.

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms, and none of the associated or coeval trace fossils has been thought to have been produced by the animals observed more directly

there is no fossil trace evidence of complex bilaterians prior to 555 Ma

quote]*Our failure to find convincing fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600 Ma;



*The apparently rapid origin[b] of very many crown group metazoans in the ~35 million year interval from ~565 Ma to ~530 Ma (the misnamed Cambrian Explosion);

now give us the fossils that link precambrian organisms with the cambrian organisms with a evolutionary history

the cambrian explosion was an

abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living animal phyla

[quote]The observation that few fundamentally new metazoan body plans ([b]some would say none) have arisen since.[quote]

[futurezoologist]

• Quote

Post by futurezoologist » Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:50 am

One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time.

There you have it again, i assume you have got this from a reliable source, we have found links, in my opinion its only a matter of time before we find more.

[alextemplet]

Re:

• Quote

Post by alextemplet » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:22 pm

gamila Said
Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms

Done.

That's evidence from you, "Few" suggests that there were some found.

<<Game Over>>

Trapped by his own logic (or lack thereof)! Classy, FZ, downright classy!

[gamila]

• Quote

Post by gamila » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:14 pm

fact is
no one denies precambriam life
what is it you dont understand

in the cambrian explosion ALLL but two of the current phylum suddenly abruptly appeared
so we have a situation where we get most of the current phylum appearing without any precambrian atteccendents ie with no evolutionary history

then, apparently very suddenly, starting at the beginning of the Tommotian Age (~530 Ma), almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil reocrd in rapid succession.

he explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phylathat had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons

no one denies precambriam life
but

[there is no]fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600

and

there is no fossil trace evidence of complex bilaterians prior to 555 Ma

and

and none of the associated or coeval trace fossils has been thought to have been produced by the animals observed more directly

In the strict sense, the explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phylathat had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons. One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time. The other is the Bryozoa, a phylum that contains some soft-bodied groups and may well have been present but not yet skeletonized.


very suddenly, starting at the beginning of the Tommotian Age (~530 Ma), almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil reocrd in rapid succession

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms, and none of the associated or coeval trace fossils has been thought to have been produced by the animals observed more directly


there is no fossil trace evidence of complex bilaterians prior to 555 Ma

Our failure to find convincing fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600 Ma;

now give us the fossils that link precambrian organisms with the major cambrian organisms with a evolutionary history

[AstusAleator]

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

• Quote

Post by AstusAleator » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:42 pm

Here's a quote, from your link, that you neglected to post:

However, despite the rapid proliferation of evolutionary novelties which undoubtedly occurred at this time, at least some of the phenomenon is attributable to the acquisition of preservational characteristics - 'hard parts' - and multiple lines of evidence reveal that life was already highly diversified prior to the Tommotian.

"link" fossils are a straw-man argument. Even if we didn't have any definitive links, the theory would still stand.

PS - learn how to use quotes

[gamila]

• Quote

Post by gamila » Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:34 am

Even if we didn't have any definitive links, the theory would still stand.

the theory is shown to be wrong by the cambrian explosion where all but two of all the known phylum just suddenly appeared with no evolutionary history

then, apparently very suddenly, starting at the beginning of the Tommotian Age (~530 Ma), almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil reocrd in rapid succession.

he explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phylathat had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons

even darwin saw that such an explosion of new organisms with no evolutionary history destroyed his theory

.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.)

dawlins go so far as to even say it could support creationism

[/quote]Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).[/quote]

and gould noted

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.)

[AstusAleator]

• Quote

Post by AstusAleator » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:32 am

gamila I'm curious about how you think those fossils got there - and what process other than natural selection is to blame for them?

This is a genuine curiosity - since from what I've seen, you're not necessarily a creationist, you just want to disprove NS.

Please, please please please stop posting the same quotes over and over? I've read them each at least 5 times. Does that satisfy you?

[alextemplet]

• Quote

Post by alextemplet » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:49 am

Astus, I don't think he has a clue how they got there. If he does, he'd be welcomed to post any legitimate theories of his in my "Alternative Theories" thread, but he hasn't done that so I assume his only goal is to spam.