Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2019 7:52 AM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume:
Total: 861,868 Year: 16,904/19,786 Month: 1,029/2,598 Week: 275/251 Day: 3/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 46 of 137 (486817)
10-24-2008 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 5:55 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
Why, thanks DT.

But the mask is simply a reflection of my beauty :)

Doubting Too writes:


Question:
1. If Darwin can conjecture that the tribolite descended from one-precambrian ancestor, and if there is found today a living tribolite almost exactly the same as in the fossil--can I speculate that Darwin took us for a ride?

How have I not answered your question: 'No he has not taken us for a ride'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 5:55 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 7:54 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 47 of 137 (486828)
10-24-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Larni
10-24-2008 6:47 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
Hi Larni,
Larni writes:

How have I not answered your question: 'No he has not taken us for a ride'?

You have answered my question--you enchanting beauty. But, I only made some clarification on the word "evolve". The more I imagine your beauty, hidden behind those mask, the more I am NOT convinced that your ancestor is a tribolite, or something. You must have been an angel from above, so coy to reveal your beauty. I betcha if you reveal your beauty, hard core evolutionist like Blue Jay, will instantly become a creationist. :) :)


"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time"- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p95
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 10-24-2008 6:47 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 48 of 137 (486830)
10-24-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by mark24
10-24-2008 6:39 PM


Re: Modern life form--Answer to Mark24
mark22 writes:

So a protofishthing, phylum chordata, which was pretty much the only type of chordate in the Cambrian managed to evolve into all the chordates alive today? That's fish, bats, birds, dinosaurs, humans, kangaroos, lizards, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, moles etc. If phylum chordata isn't the "kind" you speak of, then where is it in the Cambrian?

If that is your opinion, well what's your basis? If its your question, I don't can't understand why you have to ask me this. I did not say it.

My only assertion is that the fossil-pictures of Message 25, appears to back-up the creation account of Genesis.

Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.


"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time"- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p95
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 10-24-2008 6:39 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 10-24-2008 8:14 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 49 of 137 (486831)
10-24-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Modern life form--Answer to Mark24
Doubting Too,

Is that a question, or your opinion?

It had a question mark at the end, so...

I don't can't understand why you have to ask me this. I did not say it.

It's a corollary of what you have said.

No modern living organisms were created in the Cambrian. You say that life was created after its own kind. I assume you mean what all other creationists mean by this; kinds were created & limited evolution occurred within them. In this case how do you get from a Cambrian "chordate" kind to a modern chordate?

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 8:12 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 50 of 137 (486833)
10-24-2008 8:35 PM


I'm Out Thanks Guys
Thanks to you who enlightened me here. Special thanks to Blue Jay who provided the link. Got a heavy work load next week.

My conclusion is this: that those photos of fossils in the Cambrian period Message 25, appear to back-up the creation account on Genesis and not evolution .

I'm no expert. I only relied on what I saw. Further, please refer to my signature below-- if you want additional "expert witnesse" on why such beautiful creature as Larni could not be a product of evolution. She's probably an angel in disguise...trying to know who are for or against the Creator. She might use that gun, so be careful. :) :)


"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time"- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p95
Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 10-24-2008 8:42 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 10-24-2008 9:06 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 10-25-2008 6:38 AM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2008 11:26 AM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 51 of 137 (486835)
10-24-2008 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 8:35 PM


Re: I'm Out Thanks Guys
Creation "science" wins again, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 8:35 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 52 of 137 (486837)
10-24-2008 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NOT JULIUS
10-23-2008 6:03 PM


Cambrian Critters
I think this link could be helpful.

How is this link helpful? I thought it was supposed to support Genesis. Yet I see no "beasts of the field", I see nothing to be sown into the ground. I see no fish. I see absolutely nothing mentioned in Genesis and I everything I see is missing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-23-2008 6:03 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 53 of 137 (486838)
10-24-2008 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 8:35 PM


Re: I'm Out Thanks Guys
Hi Doubting Too, guess I'll have to "tempt"you in this thread as well.:p

Dpubting Too writes:

Thanks to you who enlightened me here. Special thanks to Blue Jay who provided the link. Got a heavy work load next week.
My conclusion is this: that those photos of fossils in the Cambrian period Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion (Message 25), appear to back-up the creation account on Genesis and not evolution .


And your conclusion would be wrong, could you please go into detail as to WHY you came to this conclusion? I would appreciate it.

I'm no expert. I only relied on what I saw.

Exactly, and you've only see a VERY VERY small portion of it. Do you think you can draw conclusions from very very small parts of knowledge?

Further, please refer to my signature below-- if you want additional "expert witnesse" on why such beautiful creature as Larni could not be a product of evolution.

Alright, let's take a look, shall we:
"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time"- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p95

A quotemine, how nice, could you please back it up with some evidence?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 8:35 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 54 of 137 (486866)
10-25-2008 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 8:35 PM


Re: I'm Out Thanks Guys
Hi DT.

Do you think that based on the small amount of information that you have that you could come to an inaccurate conclusion?

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 8:35 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 55 of 137 (486897)
10-25-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 8:35 PM


Re: I'm Out Thanks Guys
My conclusion is this: that those photos of fossils in the Cambrian period Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion (Message 25), appear to back-up the creation account on Genesis and not evolution .

Is that because the Genesis account says that God created lifeforms that do not look like modern species over a period of several tens of millions of years? Interesting.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 8:35 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 56 of 137 (486912)
10-25-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 5:27 PM


Sorry to see you go so soon, Doubting Too.
Hi, Doubting Too

Doubting Too writes:

Without any interpretation / re-interpretation, those pictures support creation rather than speculation--or guess if you want. Remember, let's stick to the Cambrian explosion--not to any other form of so called "evidence".

You are still using that word, even after I explained to you why it is erroneous. The theory of common ancestry is not speculation: the conformity of all organisms to a single genetic code with myriads of small variations on the same suite of genes, some of which variations are not important to the construction of the organism, is clearly indicative of a non-teleological origin of all living things from a common mold, probably from a single common mold (though this is still not certain).

I tell you again, you cannot call it speculation simply because you haven't taken the time to understand all the thinking, experimenting, and effort that went into it.

Furthermore, saying that the pictures support creation is also an “interpretation,” one, in your case, that is based on an extremely tiny bit of information and even less effort to understand it.

-----

Doubting Too writes:

I abhor the thought that those organisms are my ancestors.

Your personaly feelings have no place in an objective search for truth. I abhor the thought that God would kill a man for touching a holy artifact, but that appears to be what God did. So, you abhot the thought that you evolved from something else, but that appears to be what you did.

The only advice I can offer is: “Get over it.”

-----

Doubting Too writes:

I swear as early as the 1960's I was making them [trilobites] fishing baits. Too bad I didn't have pictures of them. They are bad baits though. Was it because the fish recognize them as grandpa...while stupid me did not?

:)

I’m sure that’s not it. Keep in mind that most mammals prey on other mammals, most insects prey on other insects, and most animals out there may be cannibalistic.

And, no, trilobites have definitely been extinct for over 200 million years, as evidenced by the fact that they have only ever been seen as fossils in rocks that are over 200 million years old. Many arthropods look like each other to the untrained eye (I discern fly families by the direction the head bristles bend or by the veins in the wing, just for an example), and there are many organisms that one might mistake for a trilobite or for Anomalocaris or something.

Furthermore, fish are not particularly closely related to trilobites. Trilobites are arthropods, while fish are vertebrates. The two groups’ last common ancestor lived well before the Cambrian period, and true vertebrates wouldn’t appear until the late Cambrian period. In fact, no animal alive today has a trilobite as its ancestor (that’s what is meant when we say, “trilobites are extinct”).

-----

Doubting Too writes:

that those photos of fossils in the Cambrian period ... appear to back-up the creation account on Genesis and not evolution .

And, a shepherd might look around himself and, upon seeing no wolves, conclude that this was a safe place to raise sheep.

If you draw your conclusions from a small set of data, and without putting any effort into it, I would suggest you use the word “speculate” in the same sentence, while simultaneously refraining from using the word “speculate” in reference to people with a large set of data, and who have put in hours, days, weeks, months and even years of effort.

-----

Doubting Too writes:

First, there is a problem of relationship between tribolites and other arthopods...then they have "the same ancestors as those of the other arthropods?

You keep getting the “b” and “l” in “trilobites” switched around. :)

What ‘Cat was talking about is that we know that trilobites are cousins of other arthropods, but we don’t know whether they’re first cousins, second cousins, once removed, twice removed, etc. In fact, they’re probably all of those things in relation to different groups of arthropods. It’s just like going to a family reunion: your cousin is somebody else’s uncle, and your grandfather is somebody else’s brother. But, in the case of the arthropods, we don’t actually know who is who’s father or brother: we only know that they belong to the same “family” (“clade” is a better term here: “family” means something else in taxonomy).

Another thing that you must look at is that animals in the Cambrian period are very different from animals today (even though they share some features in common with modern animals). So, whatever hypothesis you propose to re-explain natural history, must explain why there is a difference between fossil organisms in Cambrian rocks, fossil organisms in other rock layers, and living organisms today. Intelligent Design does not do this: the Theory of Evolution does.

-----

Doubting Too, to Larni, writes:

I betcha if you reveal your beauty, hard core evolutionist like Blue Jay, will instantly become a creationist.

First, my name has no spaces in it. It looks like this:

Bluejay

Second, I’m already married to a woman who I’m pretty sure is way hotter than Larni, and we have the cutest little baby that world has ever seen. And, I’m still an evolutionist. :P


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 5:27 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 10-26-2008 5:45 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 57 of 137 (486949)
10-26-2008 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Blue Jay
10-25-2008 1:58 PM


Jumping to conclusions.
Bluejay writes:

If you draw your conclusions from a small set of data, and without putting any effort into it, I would suggest you use the word “speculate” in the same sentence,

I echo these sentiments.

If DT did not rely on such a limited data set before drawing inaccurate conclusions about my gender he or she would have described me as hansom, rather than beautiful :).

Bluejay writes:

Second, I’m already married to a woman who I’m pretty sure is way hotter than Larni,

:) you will win hands down on that score.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 10-25-2008 1:58 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 10-26-2008 12:55 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 58 of 137 (486977)
10-26-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Larni
10-26-2008 5:45 AM


Re: Jumping to conclusions.
Hi, Larni.

Larni writes:

If DT did not rely on such a limited data set before drawing inaccurate conclusions about my gender he or she would have described me as hansom, rather than beautiful.

Only a psychology professional would have taken it so well. ;)


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 10-26-2008 5:45 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 59 of 137 (487122)
10-27-2008 6:53 PM


If your truly searching for truth about the cambrian perhaps a person should check the peer reviewed science journals instead of anti-creationist websites like talkorigins.They state that no plant,spider,rabbit or any other mammal has been found.

Heres what we find in peer reviewed journas:

IN THE CAMBRIAN,John Repetski,US Geol. Survey,"The oldest land plants now known are from the early cambrian...Approximately 60 cambrian spore-genera are now on record...Represent 6 different groups of vascular plants..."EVOLUTION,V.13,6/59,P.264"

Micheal Cremos' book "Human Devolution" sites a source for plants and insects from the cambrian in india.

I guess if we pulled a rabbit out of the cambrian they would only say "Why do we only find single celled organisms below it?"

Just another example why evolution is unfalsifiabal.


Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by bluescat48, posted 10-27-2008 10:47 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 11-07-2008 12:43 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 60 of 137 (487135)
10-27-2008 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Jason777
10-27-2008 6:53 PM


IN THE CAMBRIAN,John Repetski,US Geol. Survey,"The oldest land plants now known are from the early cambrian...Approximately 60 cambrian spore-genera are now on record...Represent 6 different groups of vascular plants..."EVOLUTION,V.13,6/59,P.264"

Try something newer that 6/59, there has been quite a lot of research since then.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Jason777, posted 10-27-2008 6:53 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019