Creation vs. Evolution

[Greg Jennings]

But it is like compressing all evolution into a week since they all occur together.

Here is what Richard Dawkins said of Flatworms....
"I have dealt with the Cambrian Explosion at length before. Here I'll add just one new point, illustrated by the flatworms, Platyhelminthes. This great phylum of worms includes the parasitic flukes and tapeworms, which are of great medical importance. My favorites, however, are the free-living turbellarian worms, of which there are more than 4,000 species: that's about as numerous as all the mammal species put together. They are common, both in water and on land, and presumably have been common for a very long time. You'd expect, therefore, to see a rich fossil history. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing. Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found. The Platyhelminthes, to a worm, are "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." But in this case, "the very first time they appear" is not the Cambrian but today. "

http://europe.newsweek.com/excerpt-richard-dawkinss-new-book-evolution-79345?rm=eu

Well it would seem that this quote was taken prior to the sciencedaily article I showed you. Why do you believe Wikipedia, where anyone can post anything, over a scientific publication?

 

[iouae]

Well it would seem that this quote was taken prior to the sciencedaily article I showed you. Why do you believe Wikipedia, where anyone can post anything, over a scientific publication?

Because that publication smelled of someone desperate to find early bilateral symmetry, like palaeontologists eager to find missing links.

It sets off my bull detector, and I am sure is bogus.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Because that publication smelled of someone desperate to find early bilateral symmetry, like palaeontologists eager to find missing links.

It sets off my bull detector, and I am sure is bogus.

Okay so let me get this straight: an article in a scientific publication that contained information subject to scrutiny by the entire scientific community sets off your bull detector.....

But a Wikipedia article that you know could've had incorrect information added to it with the click of a mouse doesn't?

You do see the logical disconnect there, don't you?

 

[iouae]

Okay so let me get this straight: an article in a scientific publication that contained information subject to scrutiny by the entire scientific community sets off your bull detector.....

But a Wikipedia article that you know could've had incorrect information added to it with the click of a mouse doesn't?

You do see the logical disconnect there, don't you?

Why were no other fossils EVER found?

That's a definite for me, not some sucky publication from a sucky Spanish institution. But hey, if there is any other verification of it, show me. It was like those bogus "bacteria" in Mars rock.

 

[gcthomas]

Why were no other fossils EVER found?

Simply because fossilisation is extremely rare for any animal, and most fossils are only of the hard part. No hard parts - very hard to fossilise.

Rather than try to focus on an animal that would not be expected to leave many, if any, direct fossils, perhaps you could pick up on an animal with hard parts? Say, why no rabbits in the Cambrian? Or no mammals at all? Or birds? Or lizards?

 

[iouae]

Simply because fossilisation is extremely rare for any animal, and most fossils are only of the hard part. No hard parts - very hard to fossilise.

Rather than try to focus on an animal that would not be expected to leave many, if any, direct fossils, perhaps you could pick up on an animal with hard parts? Say, why no rabbits in the Cambrian? Or no mammals at all? Or birds? Or lizards?

"The Burgess Shale Formation is a fossiliferous deposit exposed in the Canadian Rockies of British Columbia, Canada.[2] It is famous for the exceptional preservation of the soft parts of its fossils. At 508 million years (Middle Cambrian) old,[3] it is one of the earliest fossil beds containing soft-part imprints."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

Your last sentence I am sure is funny or profound, but I have no clue what it means.

 

[alwight]

Arthropods and fish - very complex, high on the tree of life (TOL), found early Cambrian e.g. Trilobites.

Flatworms, low on TOL, found late in fossil record.

First of all as I have already explained some time ago now what I think the possibilities are, since iirc we agreed that we can allow for at least several millions of years of evolution in the Cambrian, so we are not talking about a spontaneous creation right?

I can only surmise but I explained before that with higher oxygen levels and more and more calcium becoming available enabling hard body parts, while the Cambrian sediment is thought to be more likely to preserve fossils than before.
These imo are all reasonable and realistic factors to explain why and what is found.

Complex life surely already did exist it just wasn't hard or as likely to fossilise previously. It isn't as if complex life had to suddenly appear from nothing, it simply must have adapted relatively quickly, particularly since the competition was perhaps almost nil.

There are just too many possible factors and possibilities for it to be remotely reasonable to reject a perfectly natural, if relatively rapid Cambrian process of Darwinian evolution than is usual.

My albeit limited research on flatworms would seem to indicate that in fact they probably evolved from hydra before the start of the Cambrian so I'm not too sure who has got their facts confused here. :liberals:
http://quatr.us/biology/animals/flatworms/

 

[iouae]

First of all as I have already explained some time ago now what I think the possibilities are, since iirc we agreed that we can allow for at least several millions of years of evolution in the Cambrian, so we are not talking about a spontaneous creation right?

I can only surmise but I explained before that with higher oxygen levels and more and more calcium becoming available enabling hard body parts, while the Cambrian sediment is thought to be more likely to preserve fossils than before.
These imo are all reasonable and realistic factors to explain why and what is found.

Complex life surely already did exist it just wasn't hard or as likely to fossilise previously. It isn't as if complex life had to suddenly appear from nothing, it simply must have adapted relatively quickly, particularly since the competition was perhaps almost nil.

There are just too many possible factors and possibilities for it to be remotely reasonable to reject a perfectly natural, if relatively rapid Cambrian process of Darwinian evolution than is usual.

My albeit limited research on flatworms would seem to indicate that in fact they probably evolved from hydra before the start of the Cambrian so I'm not too sure who has got their facts confused here. :liberals:
http://quatr.us/biology/animals/flatworms/

These fossils were all found together, in fact Trilobites right there at the bottom. All evolution occurred at once to THE most "advanced" forms, Cordata and Arthropoda smack bang there from the start.

There is NO fossil record of flatworms till recently. Richard Dawkins says so. Would he lie?

And the Burgess shales preserved soft bodies. There was no tampering with the evidence.

What would Columbo deduce?

 

[gcthomas]

"The Burgess Shale Formation is a fossiliferous deposit exposed in the Canadian Rockies of British Columbia, Canada.[2] It is famous for the exceptional preservation of the soft parts of its fossils. At 508 million years (Middle Cambrian) old,[3] it is one of the earliest fossil beds containing soft-part imprints."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

Your last sentence I am sure is funny or profound, but I have no clue what it means.

From the Wikipedia page,

These fossils have been preserved in a distinctive style known as*Burgess shale type preservation, which preserves fairly tough tissues such as cuticle as thin films, and soft tissues as solid shapes, quickly enough that decay has not destroyed them. Moderately soft tissues, such as muscles, are lost.*​

 

[alwight]

All evolution occurred at once to THE most "advanced" forms, Cordata and Arthropoda smack bang there from the start.

Again, what exactly do you mean by "All evolution occurred at once" but otoh since you used the word "evolution" then you aren't presenting a case for a miraculous creation, just something rather more rapid than usual, correct?

 

[iouae]

From the Wikipedia page,

These fossils have been preserved in a distinctive style known as*Burgess shale type preservation, which preserves fairly tough tissues such as cuticle as thin films, and soft tissues as solid shapes, quickly enough that decay has not destroyed them. Moderately soft tissues, such as muscles, are lost.*​

The T.O.L lies about Arthropods, Cordates - why should it not be wrong about flatworms too?

And ribbon worms, Nematodes, Hemichordates, Tunicates - surely these should all be more "ancient", but look at the spindle diagram. These were all created recently it seems, even though their structure is primitive.

 

[gcthomas]

The T.O.L lies about Arthropods, Cordates - why should it not be wrong about flatworms too?

Just reject any evidence that shows up your mistakes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'lalala' very loudly. If you are very lucky you will be able to avoid reality for a very long time.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Why were no other fossils EVER found?

That's a definite for me, not some sucky publication from a sucky Spanish institution. But hey, if there is any other verification of it, show me. It was like those bogus "bacteria" in Mars rock.

There have been some flatworm fossils found. I know for a fact that tapeworm fossils have been found near human remains. They're parasites, and have a higher chance of fossilization than non-parasitic species because when their host dies and is preserved, they are preserved within it.

Read the fourth paragraph down for a second source confirmation that there are indeed some flatworm fossils: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/platyhelminthes/platyhelminthes.html

 

[iouae]

Again, what exactly do you mean by "All evolution occurred at once" but otoh since you used the word "evolution" then you aren't presenting a case for a miraculous creation, just something rather more rapid than usual, correct?

Either I had a Damascus experience between the last post and now and saw the light that Evolution is "The Way", or I forgot the quotes.

When they teach evolution, it sounds like it occurred Protozoa---> Porifera ---> Coelenterata ---> Platyhelminthes ---> Annelida ---> Arthropoda ---> etc.

It sure sounded like it took a long time to go through these phases, but here on the ground, the fossil record shows all together or Phyla like Platyhelminthes (flatworms) missing.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It sure sounded like it took a long time to go through these phases, but here on the ground, the fossil record shows all together or Phyla like Platyhelminthes (flatworms) missing.

No it doesn't. I've personally provided you with two credible sources refuting your above statements

 

[iouae]

No it doesn't. I've personally provided you with two credible sources refuting your above statements

So you have the authority to redraw the spindle diagram, and refute Dawkins.

I have a bridge I am selling cheap

 

[gcthomas]

So you have the authority to redraw the spindle diagram, and refute Dawkins. Thats sy

Dawkins doesn't suggest that all those phyla arrived at the same time.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So you have the authority to redraw the spindle diagram, and refute Dawkins. Thats sy

No. But other scientists do, and they apparently have. Also, this may come as a shock to you, but Richard Dawkins isn't the foremost expert of evolutionary theory out there. He's not even really that high up there, so his one dissenting opinion (assuming you're not misrepresenting his quote) isn't going to change the consensus of the scientific community. You're just familiar with him because he's the most overly zealous atheist alive.

Give me a link to the Dawkins quote, please. I'd like to check the date on it and its surrounding context

 

[alwight]

Either I had a Damascus experience between the last post and now and saw the light that Evolution is "The Way", or I forgot the quotes.

When they teach evolution, it sounds like it occurred Protozoa---> Porifera ---> Coelenterata ---> Platyhelminthes ---> Annelida ---> Arthropoda ---> etc.

It sure sounded like it took a long time to go through these phases, but here on the ground, the fossil record shows all together or Phyla like Platyhelminthes (flatworms) missing.

Perhaps you are just a little bit too keen to come the conclusion that a naturalistic answer is impossible?

 

[iouae]

Just reject any evidence that shows up your mistakes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'lalala' very loudly. If you are very lucky you will be able to avoid reality for a very long time.

lalalalalalalalalalalalal