IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
I should remind you that fossils of soft-bodied organisms are famously found in Cambrian Preservat-Lagerstatten such as the Burgess Shale and the Chengjiang locality in China. Fossil bacteria are reported from both Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks.

---

Ah, good. You are beginning to see that there was no true 'explosion' in the Cambrian.

quote:

---

Why would depositional conditions favor preservation of bacteria in both Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks, but soft-bodied multicellular organisms only in the Phanerozoic and uppermost Precambrian?

---

I think it's called evolution... Actually, this is a question that YOU have to answer.

quote:

---

The fossil record is obviously incomplete, but there is no evidence it is so incomplete it would not preserve fossils of soft-bodied organisms for half their supposed geologic history!!

---

It doesn't. What's the point?

quote:

---

I haven't the slightest idea. Species appear and disappear abruptly, according to scientists and they show no "gradual evolution" but "the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another".

---

However, if you look at the overall trend from single celled animals to complex, cultured organisms. There is a gradual trend.

quote:

---

Thats the sole problem of evolution.

---

I'm not sure how this is a problem. I thought we had discussed this earlier.

quote:

---

Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links?

---

Well, of the ones that are missing, I would say that they are simply unfound.

quote:

---

You have generalized it greatly. Only if you go into details of the trend, you might realize how incredibly random it is (like I have described in the case of the trilobites).

---

You mean by this that you agree with random processes in the origin of life?

quote:

---

Interesting but would you consider the remarkable similarities between bacteria billions of years old and present bacteria? Have they not undergone evolution of any sort?

---

Well, I'm not sure how many body plans and specialized tasks you can have for a single celled animal, for one. Secondly, I might challenge you to show that they did not undergo evolution. Some genetic evidence would be compelling. Third, where in the theory of evolution does it say that an organims MUST evolve?

Ahmad,

quote:

---

Mark:I ask you to consider that potentially small populations of soft bodied organisms, that molecular evidence you have cited says exist, may not have fossilised in sufficient quantities & detail to be able to corroborate the existence of said molecular phylogeny (among others) beyond the Cambrian.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
I should remind you that fossils of soft-bodied organisms are famously found in Cambrian Preservat-Lagerstatten such as the Burgess Shale and the Chengjiang locality in China. Fossil bacteria are reported from both Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks. The fossil record is obviously incomplete, but there is no evidence it is so incomplete it would not preserve fossils of soft-bodied organisms for half their supposed geologic history!!

---

The oldest multicellular animals date from 900 mya, in general agreement with molecular data making your point moot.Fine & dandy! So the annelid worms that crept underneath the dinosaurs fossils are where? Where are the bacteria that caused their decay? Or could I be right, god forbid, as taphonomy suggests, that soft bodied organisms fossilise much less readily than hard bodied ones? This is a patently ridiculous claim often made by creationists, that soft bodied organisms fossilise as well as hard parts. Why are the VAST majority of vertebrates fossils known only by their bones, & often by only one or two of them!? Same goes for marine molluscs & brachiopods (shells)? The FACT remains that the conditions for soft bodied preservation is much more restrictive than for hard part preservation. Conditions must exist that are almost totally antiseptic at the time of death.

quote:

---

Why would depositional conditions favor preservation of bacteria in both Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks, but soft-bodied multicellular organisms only in the Phanerozoic and uppermost Precambrian?

---

Soft bodied multicellular organisms only appear in the upper Precambrian because that’s when they lived, obviously. Bacteria can be found anywhere after their initial appearance, not just in Precambrian rocks.

quote:

---

Mark:
But I would be interested in where the fossils in 1/ to 6/ allegedly disappeared to?

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
I haven't the slightest idea. Species appear and disappear abruptly, according to scientists and they show no "gradual evolution" but "the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another". Thats the sole problem of evolution. Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links?

---

But therein lies your problem, groups of organisms DO appear & disappear in the fossil record, only to appear again at a later date. Where did they go? Why did tens of millions of years pass without a single discovered example, yet the lineages clearly existed? Why would you expect to see anything but abrupt appearances when lineages can go this long without preservation? Wouldn’t it be the case, therefore, to expect transitional series to be extremely rare?

quote:

---

You have generalized it greatly. Only if you go into details of the trend, you might realize how incredibly random it is (like I have described in the case of the trilobites).

---

Have I? Can you show me examples of prokaryotes & eukaryotes decreasing in complexity, then? That is, for five sixths of the fossil record the only change in complexity is upward? For the remaining portion, where does evolution claim that complexity MUST increase & NEVER decrease? This is a creationist strawman.

quote:

---

Interesting but would you consider the remarkable similarities between bacteria billions of years old and present bacteria? Have they not undergone evolution of any sort?

---

Another creationist strawman, morphology MUST change over time. Says who? Who says they haven't evolved?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-31-2002]

bump.....------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ahmad,You say:A: Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links?PB: What missing fossils? Isn't it illogic to assume missing fossils, while nobody ever observed such fossils? How can something be missing that never was?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-07-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Ahmad,

​

You say:

​

A: Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links?

​

PB: What missing fossils? Isn't it illogic to assume missing fossils, while nobody ever observed such fossils? How can something be missing that never was?

​

Best wishes,
Peter

​

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-07-2003]

---

That's right, Peter, Sphenodonts appear at the Tri/Jur boundary, become extinct for 50 million years ago, are re-created at the Ju/K boundary, become extinct for a further 146 million years, then, without warning are re-created again when Europeans described them again a few hundred years ago.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear mark,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Ahmad,
You say:A: Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links?PB: What missing fossils? Isn't it illogic to assume missing fossils, while nobody ever observed such fossils? How can something be missing that never was?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-07-2003]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mark: That's right, Peter, Sphenodonts appear at the Tri/Jur boundary, become extinct for 50 million years ago,...PB: Probably they evolved into something different. Mark: ...are re-created at the Ju/K boundary,...PB: probably they evolved back. Mark: ...become extinct for a further 146 million years,PB: Probably they evolved into something different. Mark: ...then, without warning are re-created again when Europeans described them again a few hundred years ago.PB: Probably..... etcListen, Mark, the theory had a nice opportunity to be confirmed in molecular biology. It didn't. End of the story.Best wishes,
Peter

PB,Probably. Or maybe they existed all along, but the fossils are missing...

quote:

---

Listen, Mark, the theory had a nice opportunity to be confirmed in molecular biology. It didn't. End of the story.

---

It was, Peter, it takes more than a theist posing as an atheist to change that, & until you address the questions I asked eons ago, I'm not going there. This thread is about fossil evidence, your molecular *snicker* evidence has been trounced more than adequately elsewhere. So, unless you have anything else to add? Talk about turning everything into a nail.The molecular evidence that supports evolution FALSIFIES GUToB. OK? How does that sound?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear mark,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen, Mark, the theory had a nice opportunity to be confirmed in molecular biology. It didn't. End of the story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mark: It was, Peter, it takes more than a theist posing as an atheist to change that, & until you address the questions I asked eons ago, I'm not going there.PB: It has been addresed and is reiterated in Caporale's quote. Look it up.Mark: This thread is about fossil evidence,...PB: There is no fossil evidence of gradual evolution. The fossils you need ar not there, haven't been there and will never be there. Like a midieval alchemist you are searching the stone of wisdom. (You will not find'm, I've got'm )mark: ...your molecular *snicker* evidence has been trounced more than adequately elsewhere. So, unless you have anything else to add? Talk about turning everything into a nail.PB: At least I have unequivocal evidence for design.Mark: The molecular evidence that supports evolution FALSIFIES GUToB. OK? How does that sound?PB: The sound is pretty convincing. Unfortunately, these data can be explained differently. As reiterated over and over. It is NOT unequivocal evidence.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

PB: It has been addresed and is reiterated in Caporale's quote. Look it up.

---

Nope, have the courtesy of addressing the answers to my questions to me.

quote:

---

There is no fossil evidence of gradual evolution.

---

Hey, if you can't move the goalposts, why not make your own!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2003]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: It has been addresed and is reiterated in Caporale's quote. Look it up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------mark: Nope, have the courtesy of addressing the answers to my questions to me.PB: Formulate your questions, and I will answer them (again).BW
Peter

Peter,I've formulated my questions, & put them to you a half dozen times or more. You have serially failed to answer them, so why not take your own advice & look them up? I have given up the hope that you will honestly attempt to back up the claims you make that I address, anyway, a LONG time ago. If you DO address them, then we can continue our discussion, until then, I'm not wasting my time.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear Mark,You're already wasting your time: on this forum. But anyway, if you really wish to continue, I will look them up. Mail #98 thread "End of evolutionism (2)", if I recall properly?best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Listen, Mark, the theory had a nice opportunity to be confirmed in molecular biology. It didn't. End of the story.

---

So, are you saying it never will be? It sounds like you have put yourself in a logical box.

quote:

---

Mark: This thread is about fossil evidence,...

​

PB: There is no fossil evidence of gradual evolution.

---

Your point being?

quote:

---

The fossils you need ar not there, haven't been there and will never be there.

---

The only problem you have here is that there are fossils which need explaining. Are you suggesting that the progression of fossils from the Archeozoic should be ignored?

quote:

---

Like a midieval alchemist you are searching the stone of wisdom. (You will not find'm, I've got'm )

---

I seriously doubt this. Usually, we are simply describing what we see and devising an explanation. If you have fossil evidence to the contrary, we would be glad to look at it.

dear Edge,E: I seriously doubt this. Usually, we are simply describing what we see and devising an explanation. If you have fossil evidence to the contrary, we would be glad to look at it.PB: The fossil record IS the evidence. There is no other fossil record, is there? All crucial transition forms are missing. The rest (minor transitions) can be explained by the GUToB. It descibes perfectly what we see. We don't need the utter hypothetical model of evolution from microbe to man since it describes things that have never been observed. If you had a fossil record that contained the major transition forms than you had a reason to set up such theory. Since you have not, the theory is completely gratuitous. And now even the NDT has fallen, so there is nothing left to believe the hype.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-09-2003]

Peter B,

quote:

---

Mark: That's right, Peter, Sphenodonts appear at the Tri/Jur boundary, become extinct for 50 million years ago,...

​

PB: Probably they evolved into something different.

​

Mark: ...are re-created at the Ju/K boundary,...

​

PB: probably they evolved back.

​

Mark: ...become extinct for a further 146 million years,

​

PB: Probably they evolved into something different.

​

Mark: ...then, without warning are re-created again when Europeans described them again a few hundred years ago.

​

PB: Probably..... etc

---

Impossible, the transitional fossils are missing .I'd like to see you convince Ahmad of this, he'll require transitional fossils of all those evolutionary events.

quote:

---

PB: The fossil record IS the evidence. There is no other fossil record, is there? All crucial transition forms are missing.

---

Define transitional form that fits currently accepted evolutionary theory (after all, that’s the paradigm under test), & we’ll see.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.