Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Discontinuous Fossil Record Refutes Darwinian Gradualism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    I don't see where this post addresses saturation in the fossil record.


    Well it appears that the new taxa are kinorhyncha, which is one new phylum in the fossil record. So not much to shout about.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Do you have any concept of the position the phyla occupy in taxological hierarchy?

    One way to look at it is that humans, along with all other mammals along with reptiles, birds, amphibians or anything else with a spinal cord, are all members of the phyla Chordata. In fact vertebrates constitute only a subphyla within Chordata.
    Now what was that about the discovery of a phyla is not much to shout about?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      I agree, though I hold that the Cambrian explosion was too fast to be due solely to speciation.
      I'm curious as to why you think so. (Aside from the fact that someone said so, and you want to believe it.)

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Stoic View Post
        I'm curious as to why you think so. (Aside from the fact that someone said so, and you want to believe it.)
        Ignorance-fueled statements like Lee's is the reason there is a movement to stop using the term Cambrian Explosion and to replace it with either Cambrian Radiation or Cambrian Diversification. This 15-25 million year period is only an "explosion" in geological terms (Donald Prothero likens it to a slow fuse) and has led to repeated misconceptions.

        Moreover, as more data from the Ediacaran and Cambrian becomes available the evidence has been pointing more and more to no sudden (geologically speaking) increase but rather a relatively steady rate of radiations stretching back into the Ediacaran and continuing from then.

        For instance:


        Source: Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosion


        Abstract

        The ‘Cambrian Explosion’ describes the rapid increase in animal diversity and abundance, as manifest in the fossil record, between ~540 and 520 million years ago (Ma). This event, however, is nested within a far more ancient record of macrofossils extending at least into the late Ediacaran at ~571 Ma. The evolutionary events documented during the Ediacaran–Cambrian interval coincide with geochemical evidence for the modernisation of Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Holistic integration of fossil and geochemical records leads us to challenge the notion that the Ediacaran and Cambrian worlds were markedly distinct, and places biotic and environmental change within a longer-term narrative. We propose that the evolution of metazoans may have been facilitated by a series of dynamic and global changes in redox conditions and nutrient supply, which, potentially together with biotic feedbacks, enabled turnover events that sustained multiple phases of radiation. We argue that early metazoan diversification should be recast as a series of successive, transitional radiations that extended from the late Ediacaran and continued through the early Palaeozoic. We conclude that while the Cambrian Explosion represents a radiation of crown-group bilaterians, it was simply one phase amongst several metazoan radiations, some older and some younger.


        Source

        © Copyright Original Source




        And let's not forget that not long after the "Cambrian Explosion" you have another mass extinction at the start of the Ordovician period resulting in the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE) during which the number of taxonomic orders doubled and families tripled.



        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post

          I agree, though I hold that the Cambrian explosion was too fast to be due solely to speciation.
          What is the basis for your 'hold that . . . ' other than a religious agenda. The fossil record is abundant for rapid speciation in the Cambrian explosion and very rapid after the Cretaceous extinction event as documented at the Corral Bluffs extinction event? Very confusing . . . 'Solely due . . . ?' The rapid speciation in these periods of rime, and others is due to environmental change that resulted in an extinction event and the resulting rapid speciation


          Well, I'm not sure where to find further evidence, so we may have to agree to disagree.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          Are you 'arguing from ignorance' to justify your arguments on what may or may not be found in the future,

          Please respond to the scientific evidence.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            And that illustrates the problem nicely.
            Well, how so? I still don't see how this post addresses fossil saturation.

            Sigh, from the abstract at the link you're pointing me to: "preliminary taxonomic diversity that suggests it could rival the Chengjiang and Burgess Shale biotas."
            Fine, but only one new phylum, is the point still.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Now what was that about the discovery of a phyla is not much to shout about?
              Because I chose phyla as a rough selector of different body plans. But the point is that new body plans are not expected to evolve within the lifetime of a single species.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                I'm curious as to why you think so. (Aside from the fact that someone said so, and you want to believe it.)
                Because the lifetime of a few species is not enough to account for the great diversity that occurred in the Cambrian explosion.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Source: Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosion


                  We conclude that while the Cambrian Explosion represents a radiation of crown-group bilaterians, it was simply one phase amongst several metazoan radiations, some older and some younger.

                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  But this does nothing to solve the problem, if the radiation of crown-group bilaterians is in the lifetime of a few species. And they seem to imply that these radiations are separate, and thus independent. Which again does not solve the problem.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Because the lifetime of a few species is not enough to account for the great diversity that occurred in the Cambrian explosion.
                    And why is that?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Because I chose phyla as a rough selector of different body plans. But the point is that new body plans are not expected to evolve within the lifetime of a single species.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      You choose phyla without having the slightest idea what that entails or else you wouldn't be sprouting such ignorant nonsense as "but only one new phylum" and "which is one new phylum in the fossil record. So not much to shout about."

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But this does nothing to solve the problem, if the radiation of crown-group bilaterians is in the lifetime of a few species. And they seem to imply that these radiations are separate, and thus independent. Which again does not solve the problem.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        Few species? This is not correct, and there is not problem. You need to respond to the citations of scientific journals. and correct concepts of 'body plans' and phyla.'

                        Still waiting for you to respond to the Corral Bluffs site evidence. In less than a million years a limited number, not a few, species of generalized species of animals (mostly mammals), plants and insects evolved into many diversified specialized species. This is the factual evidence and no problems.

                        Again, again and again the changes in the environment causes the extinction event, creates the environmental niches and is the cause of rapid radiation and diversification of new species as it has been throughout the history of life,
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-21-2021, 07:32 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Well, how so? I still don't see how this post addresses fossil saturation.
                          I was pointing out that your posts illustrate that you don't know enough to understand why fossil saturation isn't an issue at this point in time.

                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Fine, but only one new phylum, is the point still.
                          And this demonstrates you have reading comprehension problems. The abstract highlights there are new taxa there; it says nothing about whether there are or aren't new taxa elsewhere.

                          This also demonstrates how desperate you are to find any way of dismissing evidence you don't like. You haven't read beyond the abstract, have you? So there's no way you can tell what the fuller description of the fossils that the paper contains. But you latch on to your own misinterpretation of a fragment of a sentence in the abstract, and decide that it allows you to disregard a different section of the abstract entirely.

                          Because the only thing that matters to you is preserving your beliefs - honesty and the truth be damned.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Because I chose phyla as a rough selector of different body plans. But the point is that new body plans are not expected to evolve within the lifetime of a single species.
                            Why not?
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              Why not?
                              Originally posted by Stoic
                              And why is that?
                              Darwinian gradualism! Note how many species are involved in the putative evolution of whales, for instance, which is not even a new phylum.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                I was pointing out that your posts illustrate that you don't know enough to understand why fossil saturation isn't an issue at this point in time.
                                So explain then why fossil saturation is not an issue, then.

                                The abstract highlights there are new taxa there; it says nothing about whether there are or aren't new taxa elsewhere.
                                And it also says what is new is a new phylum.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 08-01-2022, 09:59 AM
                                1 response
                                11 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-28-2022, 08:09 AM
                                18 responses
                                120 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 07-27-2022, 10:28 AM
                                64 responses
                                207 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 07-27-2022, 06:17 AM
                                2 responses
                                17 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-26-2022, 06:37 PM
                                2 responses
                                22 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X