Is there truly taxonomy & phylogeny to the body plans of the Cambrian Explosion?

The overall framework of early metazoan evolution comes from molecular data, but they cannot provide insights into the anatomical changes and associated changes in ecology that accompanied the emergence of bodyplans during the Cambrian explosion I still contend that their is a dearth of material available that explains the body plan evolution during the Cambrian explosion despite the acrimonious objection from many. Well here is your chance to post links or citations to prove your point.

Views: 1184

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

LOL

For god's sake, will you go to Wikipedia or something and learn about this stuff?

I already explained  to you that the century ago confusion about the Cambrian period (20 MILLION YEARS) is simply covering a part of the evolutionary process that involved critters with few if any hard parts TO be fossilized well, to a period where they developed many hard parts, and we started to, progressively, over that 20 MILLION YEAR PERIOD, an increase in these fossils.

So, if there are few if any fossils of each and every critters internal organs, we look at what their modern counterparts look like, and see if it makes sense.  We look at the genetic make-up of the involved critters, and see what is related to what. 

The body plan fossils we do have do show a development from the softer critters to more and more of the harder ones.

Essentially, as more and more evolution occurred, a huge variety of life attempted to flourish.  Most went extinct, as later forms out competed the earlier ones, but, it was essentially a free for all, as new environmental niches opened for the first time.

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

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIB1cCambrian.shtml

http://www.nature.com/news/what-sparked-the-cambrian-explosion-1.19379

http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explos...

Those are a decent starting point.

:D

Hi Michael,

It's interesting that evolution-skeptics such as yourself set such high standards for the level of evidence required to convince you of the theory and yet your alternative to the theory (which I'm going to assume is that "God did it", please correct me if I'm wrong) has NO material evidence of any kind and yet appears to get a free pass.

Shouldn't we be asking for detailed material evidence of Jesus' resurrection and the virgin birth? After all, you're asking for evidence of stuff that happened hundreds of millions of year ago and we're asking for evidence of stuff that happened a mere 2000 years ago.

Although the evidence will never be complete we are fortunate that we have any fossil evidence that we can use as the basis of a theory. I repeat, there is no evidence for any creationist theory.

Yes will not find fossilized spirits. But you have more eyewitness accounts of spirits, hauntings and ufos ( I consider ufos and usos spirits) Russians have detected usos traveling at over 200 miles per hour submerged. This is a physical impossibility. spirits have been seen a photographed walking through walls. This is only possible if spirits are non-baryonic, particularly they must not have electron shells around their fundamental particles in order to pass through matter. ufos have been seen making right angle turns in the sky, this is only possible if their particles are unaffected by the Higgs Bosom field. In short spirits predate the big bang since they are completely non-baryonic

"eyewitness accounts of spirits, hauntings and ufos"

Eyewitness accounts on their own are not evidence. They can be followed by rigorous investigation that may provide evidence but the accounts themselves are not evidence because as we know from the study of psychology eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

"Russians have detected usos traveling at over 200 miles per hour submerged. This is a physical impossibility"

Please provide a citation for the research paper published by the Russians involved.

"spirits have been seen a photographed walking through walls. This is only possible if spirits are non-baryonic"

"Have been seen"? Please provide a citation for the research published on this phenomenon.

"In short spirits predate the big bang since they are completely non-baryonic"

Using a word like non-baryonic doesn't lend credence to your assertions. Where is the evidence for this?

These non-questions you are asking make it terribly clear that you have an extremely incomplete understanding of evolution. Pick up a reputable book on the topic and read it!

You are completely wrong assuming that the Cambrian is fully understood as I have exemplified above. But you and TJ have a believe system that it is.

"fully"?

LOL

So, you fully understand the mind of god? - Explain the mind of god.

You fully understand the ways in which god works? - Explain how god works.

You fully understand why a tsunami kills thousands of children? - Explain why god kills thousands of children with tsunamis.

You fully understand why our only source of energy, the sun, also causes cancer and can burn us? - Explain why god made our only source of heat and energy also cause cancer and burn us.

Please actually ANSWER the above 4 questions.

There is overwhelming evidence of how evolution works and worked, simply overwhelming.

Its like we see the factories making the cars, we see the crews building the roads, we see the bridges and highways and gas stations...and you say, wait, there was really light traffic a bit ago, and you can't explain it?  Therefore there are no such things as cars.

:D

Its even funnier, because we DID explain it, but you seem evidence proof unless the evidence comes from a creationist source.

So, anyway, please answer the 4 above questions.

:D

The overall framework of early metazoan evolution comes from molecular data, but they cannot provide insights into the anatomical changes and associated changes in ecology that accompanied the emergence of bodyplans during the Cambrian explosion I still contend that their is a dearth of material available that explains the body plan evolution during the Cambrian explosion despite the acrimonious objection from many. Well here is your chance to post links or citations to prove your point.

----------------------------------

Lets break down what you think you are asking:

1) The overall framework of early metazoan evolution comes from molecular data, but they cannot provide insights into the anatomical changes and associated changes in ecology that accompanied the emergence of bodyplans during the Cambrian explosion

A framework can be many things, and molecular data can mean many things, early metazoan evolution can cover a lot of ground.

The real data does in fact insights into the body plans that emerged though, for example:

The overall framework of early metazoan evolution

Evolution comes in frameworks now? huh?

they cannot provide insights into the anatomical changes and associated changes in ecology that accompanied the emergence of bodyplans during the Cambrian explosion

Not sure what you mean by "bodyplans", but I think you should search wikipedia for "punctuated equilibrium". Also, you should put a full stop at the end of the word explosion. This sort of sloppy use of the English language always makes me question the intelligence of the people I'm talking to, and frankly, I know you can do better. Or is this a quote? It kind of reads like you copy and pasted this. Apologies to the original author if you are from a non-english speaking background.

Well here is your chance to post links or citations to prove your point.

I'm unsure what point I was supposed to make. Michael, please edit your post so I can make some sense of what's going on here. Is this a response to a conversation in another thread?

I think he meant that he had pasted some babble from a creationist source, and assumed he had said something meaningful.  He then thought, because he used horrifically poor sources, that there was no data.  He then added to that process by thinking that our prior rejections of his babble was "bitter", but, that he was trying to get us to, for some reason, tell him, again, what the Cambrian period was like.

He thought his question was supposed to make US have a point, instead of his question having a point as would be normal.

I believe that was, again, because it was in response to prior threads, and he must be assuming continuity, which is OK with me.

So, in the spirit of education, I posted some diagrams/illustrations that show the "body plan" changes he thought were unknown.

To understand evolution, he really just needs to read up from actual sources and not the fake sources designed to confuse the faithful.

Right now, he's bouncing around trying to prove science is wrong, on a computer, over the internet, which runs on electricity, and which includes sections of satellite coverage in space.

Its somewhat amusing, in a frustrating way...like listening to your teenager tell you "You were never my age!" and so forth.

I would not expect him to suddenly become articulate though, as you have to actually understand your topic to discuss it intelligently, in your own words.

He has to add pasted words, or maybe paraphrases, to have material though, and its a bit painful to witness the lingual and intellectual carnage that results.

He DID say he'd read a current scientific book on the topic, but, so far, the sources are definitely lacking in validity.

sigh.

These articles only provide speculation on the explosion. There is no peer reviewed smoking gun moreover:
The early record of the Cambrian Explosion is based on fossils - principally the appearance of mineralized skeletons and complex trace fossils. The typically tiny skeletal elements from this time are called "small shelly fossils." These constitute a highly varied assortment of sclerites, spicules, tubes, and shells, suggestive of several different types of animals. Unfortunately, many of the fossils remain poorly understood and are difficult to classify within known taxonomic groups.

Early Cambrian sclerite-bearing animals. 1, Siphogonuchites. 2, Hippopharangites. 3, Lapworthella. 4, Eccentrotheca. 5, 6, Microdictyon. 7, Tumulduria. 8, Scoponodus. 9, Jaw-like elements of Cyrtochites. 10, Porcauricula, 11, Dermal element of Hadimopanella. 12, Cambroclavus. 13, Paracarinachites. Scale bars = 0.1 mm.

You are misunderstanding what is being discussed.

Lets see, for example, can you say, in your own words, what this is demonstrating/illustrating:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/wp-content/blogs.dir/470/files/2...

Its the same as the second illustration above if easier to see.

Go through it, and tell me what each part is showing evidence of.

This might help to avoid your pasting issue, and see f you have any understanding of it.

So far, you are failing to see the forest because a few trees look funny to you.

At least, that's what your posts are indicating.

If you are able to break down the illustration parts and intelligently discuss what they mean, it would go a long way towards making you seem less like a paster of creationist propaganda.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service