Re: Cambrian explosion bit of an embarassment

topmind wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:

On 2006-09-10, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:

On 2006-09-10, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


You have to admit that the Cambrian Explosion is a bit of an
embarassment from an evidence standpoint.

Uh, no. I don't think I do have to admit that. The Cambrian explosion
is documented by a rather remarkable collection of fossil evidence. In
particular, the Burgess Shale has many remarkable and signficant finds
from this period. Gould's _Wonderful Life_ is an accessible work on
the subject.

The Burgess Shales simply show the cambrian forms with all the listed
features. That does not answer the key questions about their origins.

If fossil evidence is insufficient to show their origins, then so be it.
Such a fact can be true or false, but it isn't "embarrassing".


Well, without a certified embarassometer, such is a matter of opinion.


NOBODY cares about TOPMIND's opinion. it has no weight.

Out of a period of no more than about 5-10 million years, these
features "popped" out of nowhere in the fossil record:

The Cambrian extends from about 542 mya to about 488.3 mya.

I meant the transition from pre-camb to camb; the formation of the
listed features, for example.

Would you care to produce citations that indicate that each of the
features above originated in that rather narrow time frame? I would
submit that no paleontologist believes that these features originated
in such a narrow time frame.


There is very little evidence of their gradual introduction. The fossil
record appears to show them more or less all appearing at the same
time.

That link also says that 700 to 319 billion years - this is the SUDDEN apperance you are talking about When the fossils appear, animal and phyloplantan, and formineferer and algae all exit already when the traces appear in the record.

The precambrian animals, if it is even safe to call them that, are
almost mushroom-like as far as anatomy.

Do these look like mushrooms?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html

Other than perhaps Spriggina, YES!

I meant to say "mushrooms or plants", by the way.

Have you actually _looked_ at a mushroom?

Incidently all non-marine plants post-date the transition you specify.


Yes, and the bottom looks a lot like a Dickinsonia. But, I did not mean
it in a literal sense, but rather "non animal". The Vendian animals
might not even be animals.


They went from oblong blobs to the familar body plans still around
today in a relative blink of an eye.

Well, in the sense that tens of millions of years can be considered
a blink of an eye. I consider such terminology to be hopeless hyperbole.

That is why I said "relative".

Which is why I agreed with you, in the sense that by "blink of an eye"
you actually meant "millions of years". For someone who argues for
precision in language, you show hopeless lapses into hypocrisy with such
nonsense.


I never meant that every paraphraph be full of precision up front, but
merely that one provide details when asked. In other words, do
step-wise-refinement when requested.


But I agree that colloquial English is
often not sufficient, but if you want more detail, then politely ask
for it rather than complain about the original text.

I don't need more detail. Let's face it after all, you don't really have
any clue about what you are talking, so what more detail could prove to be
useful? But I suggest that if you are going to continue to ask for precision
in language, that you avoid the obvious charges of hypocrisy by practicing
what you preach.


That is the proper way to do it.


and has got to be a hard-sell to skeptics.

In what sense? What kind of "skeptics" are we referring to here? There is
ample evidence to suggest that animals diversified into a wide variety of
forms in the Cambrian, and developed hard skeletal body parts that made them
better represented in the fossil record. While some like to make claims like
"all modern types are represented in the Cambrian", it seems like the
average person wouldn't agree. They would find animals like hallucigenia,
Opabinia, Pikaia, Sanctacaris and Naraoia to be fairly *unlike* the critters
that we have today.

Pikiaia resembles a lancelet. However, those dissappearing is a
different issue. Nobody I know of questions extinction, even religious
zealots.

You didn't actually answer the question I asked. Of course, since you
are a troll and/or ignorant of the topic which you proposed, I didn't
really expect you to.


You want me to identify specific skeptics by name?

no , you just have to answer the question. not gossip. or change the subject.


The huge jump in complexity is simply missing from the record. It is
analogous to going from mechanical relay computers to silicone chips
in 3 months without any record of that 3 months. We have:

* Sudden increase in complexy (see list above)
* Lack of tracability to pre-cambrian forms
* No clear record of the transitional forms (list of features above
appeared at the same time)
* All of the above happened to all animals, not just some

It has got to rank as one of the greatest scientific mysteries, perhaps
rivaling dark matter.

If we conclude that the Cambrian does present a mystery, then what further
inferences can we draw from this conclusion?

That our understanding of evolution has some major problems. Not that
is "wrong", but that it needs a looooot of work.

Wow, it's great we have you here to tell us what everyone else already
knows. Well, it would be, except that you piggy back all sorts of absurd
nonsense along with it, so perhaps it is best if we just patiently nod
our heads and ignore you.


If it is something you already know, then simply don't reply. You don't
have to reply to everything. That may be preferred to being rude. If
you view me as a troll, then don't feed the trolls.

But your CARGO CULT actvities are TROLL-LIKE. yes Bryce Jacobs is a troll.

He tells everybody that he knows more than they do. He talks down to folks so he can feel improtant And his misinformation is not simple creationism but a different delusion.
josephus


Mark


-T-


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cambrian explosion bit of an embarassment
    ... listed features, for example. ... There is very little evidence of their gradual introduction. ... I meant to say "mushrooms or plants", ... might not even be animals. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Cambrian explosion bit of an embarassment
    ... is documented by a rather remarkable collection of fossil evidence. ... The Burgess Shales simply show the cambrian forms with all the listed ... features "popped" out of nowhere in the fossil record: ... might not even be animals. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ch4 and python lampoon Christianity
    ... of all the animals that ever existed or by far the smallest ... there is no evidence to show that whatever percentage of animals ... that they were even more vicious and dangerous than the lion... ... fossil records of them after they have gone do you reckon.... ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: ch4 and python lampoon Christianity
    ... of all the animals that ever existed or by far the smallest ... there is no evidence to show that whatever percentage of animals ... that they were even more vicious and dangerous than the lion... ... fossil records of them after they have gone do you reckon.... ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: ch4 and python lampoon Christianity
    ... all the animals that ever existed or by far the smallest ... there is no evidence to show that whatever percentage of animals ... that they were even more vicious and dangerous than the lion... ... fossil records of them after they have gone do you reckon.... ...
    (uk.politics.misc)