Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[Glaucus]

Before the supposed sudden appearance of these animal types there were simple organisms. There doesn't seem to have been anything in between. I think this is where the 'sudden' comes in.

This is where you are wrong and the more fossils we uncover, the more wrong you get. So no, it is not sudden and it doesn't go against evolution. But you would know this as you would have read the link. Which outlines the fossil problem.

Many phrases should good and are coined.
Like the Big Bang, it was actually coined by someone opposed to the Big Bang theory and said as a put down at a talk. You need to read into it more, not just go by the title.

 

[Brookert]

This thread is ridiculous on both sides. It's becoming an embarrassment to the forum with the way people are responding to each other now.

And in defence of Ringo, if the Darwin "statement" everyone keeps referring to is the one where he said "I was under the impression", that's hardly a passionate declaration that what he's saying is fact.

Then why purport it as such? If it isn't a statement of fact, it isn't relevant, was the point I was trying to get at.

 

[The Running Man]

Ringo again, we cannot explain everything we observe that's why we create a theory and continue to investigate to prove or disprove and thus evolve or scrap a prior theory.

Again, can you explain to us from s theist viewpoint he Cambrian explosion?

 

[ringo747]

This is where you are wrong and the more fossils we uncover, the more wrong you get. So no, it is not sudden and it doesn't go against evolution. But you would know this as you would have read the link. Which outlines the fossil problem.

So how many of these new fossil discoveries have solved the gaps between the pre-cambrian algae/sponges and the appearance of many phyla with no ancestral trace?

I assume by you ignoring the mention of Darwins tree that you agree that it doesn't fit into the evidence from the fossil record.

 

[Raikiri]

It's quite simple, Darwins tree showed small gradual changes, getting larger with time. The Cambrian fossil records apparently show the opposite i.e. large changes with the appearance of totally new body architectures with no ancestral trace.

No it doesn't. It shows lots of small changes happening relatively quickly due to a number of external factors that haven't been replicated since.

Before the supposed sudden appearance of these animal types there were simple organisms. There doesn't seem to have been anything in between. I think this is where the 'sudden' comes in.

Most of what came inbetween the new phyla were soft bodied and thus not conducive to being fossilized. Although there are some pre-cambrian fossils that show smaller, less complex form of phyla such as Arthropoda:

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/whitesea/Parvancorina-minchami/Parvancorina.htm

http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm

 

[Glaucus]

So how many of these new fossil discoveries have solved the gaps between the pre-cambrian algae/sponges and the appearance of many phyla with no ancestral trace?

I assume by you ignoring the mention of Darwins tree that you agree that it doesn't fit into the evidence from the fossil record.

How many fossils have we got, across the entirety of ages.

I'm not ignoring anything, I massively disagree with you totally.
Darwin himself new he did not have the complete fossil record, we still don't come close to it. Fossils are rare.

 

[d_brennen]

There doesn't seem to have been anything in between. I think this is where the 'sudden' comes in.

Sudden in an evolutionary sense but not sudden as in six days. Evolution may well be decelerating as all the niches are filled, when life was new and there was all that virgin territory and a more level playing field (e.g. no super predators that are unchallenged, like many sharks) it could well be a catalyst to huge acceleration in evolution. I don't know. Better minds are working on it, publishing their findings for all to see and challenge.

There is nothing personal, no New World Order trying to undermine religion, I understand the hostility from some quarters, but it won't change anything.

Personally I believe the lack of Precambrian fossils is due to a number of factors like how long ago it was, continental shift, plant activity, soil/clay/silt being of lower density and lacking much the organic matter of today's ancient material. Another interesting theory is the proliferation of bacteria at the time. It was undoubted everywhere (there's proof out there) - several types of bacteria today are known to extract sustenance from minerals, like calcium from bones...

Of course the big news will be digging up trilobites on Mars

 

[Shayper]

You have faith when you do most things in life i.e you cross a road in the belief\faith\hope that the person in the car
you can see won't put his\her foot down and kill you.

Yes you will use your eyes and ears to cross the road safely but you never know.
Wish I was better at this kind of thing.....

No, I judge if I have enough time taking into account factors like what you said. Stop saying that I have faith. I do not. Saying otherwise is making assumptions based on your own predispositions.

 

[ringo747]

No it doesn't. It shows lots of small changes happening relatively quickly due to a number of external factors that haven't been replicated since.

To be honest I'm struggling to see how transitioning from algae/sponges/worms to creatures with completely different body architectures with no trace of ancestors is a small change. I'm curious why it is labelled the biological big bang.

Most of what came inbetween the new phyla were soft bodied and thus not conducive to being fossilized. Although there are some pre-cambrian fossils that show smaller, less complex form of phyla such as Arthropoda:

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/whitesea/Parvancorina-minchami/Parvancorina.htm

http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm

My understanding was that the record shows things like worms/sponges immediately followed by many phyla. Hasn't there been fossils of bacteria in rocks from billions of years back?

 

[d_brennen]

Three and a half billion or so

 

[i-bert]

Evolution can take a very long time, but this goes to show how quickly a species can do it if needed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/180301.stm

And that is my first and last post in this thread.

 

[ringo747]

Personally I believe the lack of Precambrian fossils is due to a number of factors like how long ago it was, continental shift, plant activity, soil/clay/silt being of lower density and lacking much the organic matter of today's ancient material. Another interesting theory is the proliferation of bacteria at the time. It was undoubted everywhere (there's proof out there) - several types of bacteria today are known to extract sustenance from minerals, like calcium from bones...

Of course the big news will be digging up trilobites on Mars

Is there any evidence to support the idea of lower soil density as an example or do you mean that this is simply a possible explanation?

 

[d_brennen]

Evolution can take a very long time, but this goes to show how quickly a species can do it if needed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/180301.stm

And that is my first and last post in this thread.

Nice. Be sure to come back

 

[d_brennen]

Is there any evidence to support the idea of lower soil density as an example or do you mean that this is simply a possible explanation?

Both. The bacteria thing is my own, but it may have been researched unbeknown to me

 

[Urgannagru]

You have faith when you do most things in life i.e you cross a road in the belief\faith\hope that the person in the car
you can see won't put his\her foot down and kill you.

Yes you will use your eyes and ears to cross the road safely but you never know.
Wish I was better at this kind of thing.....

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Shayper is talking in terms of blind faith rather than making generalisations inferred from logic or evidence. To use your example yes the person driving the car may be drunk or a nutter, but we know from experience that this is in the minority.

Edit: whoopsie, pretty big typo there

I'll agree that we have to have an element of faith in an scientific theory because it is not realistic for every single person to a) Fully understand all theories b) Every single person independantly test all aspects of this theory. How ever this is not blind faith, in school we a taught experiements to test basic elements of many theories and to interpret data, any hypothesises are peer reviewed and tested and when mistakes are made and found it is corrected. Finally there is further evidence in these theories as they have been put to use to produce something eg better antibiotics for disease resistant bacteria from evolution, complex electronics from quantum theory putting satellites in orbit using theory of gravity.

Creationism on the other hand I'm struggling to find a peer reviewed paper that is showing evidence for a creator rather than trying to poke holes in our current theory (which I'm in favour of, as when done correctly it allows us to refine our theory and make it more accurate), and of the top of my head I can't see how it can be appied to produce something. Both of these arguements I think can made with religion in general, with exception of religion be able to be used to produce a moral code, how ever secular logic can do this to a better effect by not producing laws that give unfair favour to a specific demographic.

 

[deuse]

No, I judge if I have enough time taking into account factors like what you said. Stop saying that I have faith. I do not. Saying otherwise is making assumptions based on your own predispositions.

science is your belief system http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

"I have demonstrated that a scientific belief system is differentiable from a religious one because it minimizes faith, has a greater explanatory power, and is open to belief revision"

 

[d_brennen]

I hardly think citing a blog about some random dude is wise in a thread questioning scientific theory, no disrespect to Aaron Davidson, whoever he is.

Talking to myself on the web since 1994

Edit:

Despite all the measures science takes to seek the truth and explain the universe, it is still easy to skeptical of its claims. However, it is far easier to be skeptical of religious claims. Since no better alternative belief systems exist for explaining the universe, the choice between those we have is easy.

 

[estebanrey]

You have faith when you do most things in life i.e you cross a road in the belief\faith\hope that the person in the car
you can see won't put his\her foot down and kill you.

Yes you will use your eyes and ears to cross the road safely but you never know.
Wish I was better at this kind of thing.....

That's an odd definition of faith. You are basically saying that faith is anything you don't know for sure (don't worry it's a common misnomer used by theists) or, weirdly, things you can't predict.

I would suggest faith has to be pro-active for a start, you have to have thought about something then consciously chosen to 'believe' in it. When I cross the road, I don't freeze time, then weigh up all the evidence around me, come to no conclusion then cross the road with a 'belief' I'm not going to be run over, I just don't really think about it.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that I do 'believe' the car won't run me over, it's something that I don't know. I HOPE it won't but I don't 'believe' it won't.

On the same token I HOPE there is an afterlife, but that doesn't mean I believe there is one. Just like I hope my football team will win the league this year when I know we haven't got a rat in hell's chance.

You can't just use the word 'faith' like that.

 

[hola_adios]

So how many of these new fossil discoveries have solved the gaps between the pre-cambrian algae/sponges and the appearance of many phyla with no ancestral trace?

I assume by you ignoring the mention of Darwins tree that you agree that it doesn't fit into the evidence from the fossil record.

This is a fallacy, the cambrian/pre-cambrian argument is just used by religious fanatics who have studied little, so please at least inform yourself about issues which have been refuted countless times. We might not a full picture, but it is much more of what you offer.

To whoever said that science is a believe system, no it is not, it is experimentation, interpretation of results, postulation of a hypothesis, additional experimental checking, formulation as theory if true and keep checking and rechecking it over time and generations ... there is no belief in there. The universe is more beautiful when you start to understand small bits of it, and not just invent systems with arbitrary and oppressive rules.

I do respect your believe in god, not the random rules that come in the form of a religion.

 

[Shayper]

science is your belief system http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

"I have demonstrated that a scientific belief system is differentiable from a religious one because it minimizes faith, has a greater explanatory power, and is open to belief revision"

No, it isn't, for the last time. Stop telling me who I am, because it's insulting and you are wrong.