Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

estebanrey · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:29

ringo747 said:
IThe cambrian explosion fossils show that all this development didn't happen over millions of years.

The Cambrian Explosion wan an event that took at least 5 million years and possibly up to 80 million years, so yeah you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

The Running Man · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:29

I'm just saying that it seems evident from the cambrian explosion that the sudden appearance of fully formed animal types, many of which still exist today, appears totally in contradition to the darwinian tree.

No one is saying that Darwin was 100% correct are they? Am I? Were Squirrels around at this event, or woolly mamoths or dinosaurs? if not how do you account for their existence at all?

estebanrey · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:32

ringo747 said:
I'm just saying that it seems evident from the cambrian explosion that the sudden appearance of fully formed animal types, many of which still exist today, appears totally in contradition to the darwinian tree.

That's because you don't understand the Cambrain Explosion or evolution.

1) Nothing 'suddenly' appeared (as said above the word 'explosion' is relative to what we'd normally expect, it still took 5-80 million years).

2) All animals at any given time are 'fully formed'. You keep failing to grasp that evolution is about constant change, not a journey with an endpoint.

ringo747 · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:32

estebanrey said:
That article is full of examples of animals and insects that fulfil the criteria if your question.

The problem is your misunderstanding of evolution. You are expecting to see something like a lizard with a quarter of a bird wing hanging off the side. It's no different to the croco-duck argument.

Gills are an example of a 'quarter of a wing' for example.

Ok, so if an animal found in the cambrian is fully formed with gills then surely it's development is done and there is no need for wings to develop.

Are you seriously saying that there is no development between fully formed gills and fully formed wings? It simply can't be one or other!

The Running Man said:
This isn't scientific fluff I was answering your questions directly.

You asked, "Do we know exactly what human DNA was like 10,000 years ago or is this guess work? Is there evidence that suggests that mutations can increase new information as opposed to just modifying pre-existing information?"

I told you.

As I said, you can educate yourself. Cambrian is an interesting event but it neither proves or disproves that mutation is happening around us. Once you accept the premise that DNA is changing andf that humans are different now than they were 200 years ago, or 400 or 10,00 you will only be able to conclude that evolution does happen.

I am not an expert on Cambrian events, how can I answer that when I am merely providing evidence to you from other sources. How about you read what the experts say, and not what I say, as I don't claim to know the entire detail.

It seems that everything is disguised under this fluffy mutation stuff. I'm not doubting that it happens for an instant, however, the blatant refusal to address the cambrian evidence is a far cry from the normal position of "no evidence = not true".

The Running Man · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:34

He doesn't understand any of what he is saying nor is he trying to understand what we say or the sources provided which leads to fruitless posting.

estebanrey · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:37

Stop saying "fully formed", there's no such thing in evolution. Everything is just the latest iteration.

Would you describe the English Language as 'fully formed' and if so at which point did it reach that status? Was Shakespeare using 'fully formed' English and if so how come it doesn't sound the same as we use the language today? Or if Shakespeare's English wasn't fully formed how come people could read and understand his plays?

If English is 'fully formed' how come the OED keep adding new words every year and getting rid of archaic ones? After all there's no need to develop English if it already works right?

Arrrrgh this is frustrating.

ringo747 · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:38

estebanrey said:
Stop saying "fully formed", there's no such thing in evolution. Everything is just the latest iteration.

Would you describe the English Language as 'fully formed' and if so at which point did it reach that status? Was Shakespeare using 'fully formed' English and if so how comes it doesn't sound the same as we use the language today?

If English is 'fully formed' how come the OED keep adding new words every year and getting rid of archaic ones? After all there's no need to develop English if it already works right?

Arrrrgh this is frustrating.

So why have we not seen any new animal types since the cambrian explosion discoveries? Are you forgotten that some of these animals still exist today.

The Running Man · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:40

An “explosion”?
The term “explosion” may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye. The Cambrian was preceded by many millions of years of evolution, and many of the animal phyla actually diverged during the Precambrian.

The animals of the Cambrian did not appear out of thin air. Animal fossils from before the Cambrian have been found. Roughly 575 million years ago, a strange group of animals known as Ediacarans lived in the oceans. Although, we don’t know much about the Ediacarans, the group may have included ancestors of the lineages that we identify from the Cambrian explosion.

ringo747 · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:46

The Running Man said:
An “explosion”?
The term “explosion” may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye. The Cambrian was preceded by many millions of years of evolution, and many of the animal phyla actually diverged during the Precambrian.

The animals of the Cambrian did not appear out of thin air. Animal fossils from before the Cambrian have been found. Roughly 575 million years ago, a strange group of animals known as Ediacarans lived in the oceans. Although, we don’t know much about the Ediacarans, the group may have included ancestors of the lineages that we identify from the Cambrian explosion.

Before the Cambrian period apparently there were very simple creatures only, then at the beginning of the cambrian period representatives from all animal types appeared. The term explosion is presumably used to illustrate the speed that this happened.

The Running Man · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:47

ringo747 said:
So why have we not seen any new animal types since the cambrian explosion discoveries? Are you forgotten that some of these animals still exist today.

What like mammals?

estebanrey · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:47

ringo747 said:
So why have we not seen any new animal types since the cambrian explosion discoveries? Are you forgotten that some of these animals still exist today.

Seriously WTF are you on? What do you mean by 'animal types' and what ones are 'still about' today?

You're not seriously telling me you've read something about it, seen a word like "worms" and thought "well why do worms still exist today then eh?"

It's almost as dumb as when people say "If we evolved from monkeys how come they still exist".

Raikiri · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:49

ringo747 said:
So why have we not seen any new animal types since the cambrian explosion discoveries? Are you forgotten that some of these animals still exist today.

Again, how are you defining animal types?

Mammals for example have only been around for about 250million years, much later than the cambrian 'explosion'. Is that a new type?

What about birds? They didn't evolve from dinosaurs until around 150 million years ago.

estebanrey · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:49

ringo747 said:
Before the Cambrian period apparently there were very simple creatures only, then at the beginning of the cambrian period representatives from all animal types appeared. The term explosion is presumably used to illustrate the speed that this happened.

Which is a still a period in the tens of millions of years time-frame. You've already demonstrated you didn't even know the CE took place in the millions of years, I've already corrected you so why do you keep talking as if 'explosion' means 'instant'?

estebanrey · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:50

The Running Man said:
What like mammals?

The Running Man · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:54

What scares me is if this is how all religious people see the history of the earth. Do they accept the Cambrian event? Do they think it was the garden of eden and humans were present?

ringo747 · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:54

Darwin himself acknowledged that the major groups of animals, divisions appeared suddenly in the fossil record. Do you not agree?

ringo747 · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:55

estebanrey said:
Which is a still a period in the tens of millions of years time-frame. You've already demonstrated you didn't even know the CE took place in the millions of years, I've already corrected you so why do you keep talking as if 'explosion' means 'instant'?

I'm well aware of the duration. What you don't seem to grasp is that the period is called explosion due to the sudden nature in comparison to previous phases of evolution.

The Running Man · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:58

ringo747 said:
Darwin himself acknowledged that the major groups of animals, divisions appeared suddenly in the fossil record. Do you not agree?

The theory Darwin put forward is not correct in its entirety it has been improved upon as more info has become available. The principles he is famous for but we know he didn't have as much data as we have now.

ringo747 · 2 Feb 2013 at 17:59

The Running Man said:
The theory Darwin put forward is not correct in its entirety it has been improved upon as more info has become available. The principles he is famous for but we know he didn't have as much data as we have now.

The theory might not be but what about his observation that "the major groups of animals, divisions appeared suddenly in the fossil record"?

The Running Man · 2 Feb 2013 at 18:13

They did my research tells me. My searching for what caused this also helped me to understand why. Of course you could have searched for that too but never mind.

The answer is that they do not currently have the complete answer only theories based upon evidence that is still being studied and discovered.

You can read one theory here

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418131429.htm

Others talk of the great snowball I.e a time after a massive glacial event when s thaw is occurring. This isn't currently seen as the most likely whole answer but the conditions will have enabled the evolution to occur.