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 artifact hypothesis?

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

  • The artifact hypothesis?

    Source: Evolution News

    Where are the proposed thousands of intermediate forms that led to Cambrian animals like trilobites? Evolutionists were dumbfounded by the silence in the fossil record and had to come up with a ready explanation for this conflicting evidence. The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found (Meyer et al. 2007: 144), because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

    "Deposits bearing exceptionally preserved soft-bodied fossils are unusually common in Cambrian strata; more than 40 are now known.” Thus, we definitely should expect to find the postulated ancestors of the Cambrian animal phyla in Burgess Shale-type localities of the preceding Ediacaran era. The artifact hypothesis suggested that there are no such localities. However, in the past years several fossiliferous Burgess Shale-type (BST) biota from the Ediacaran have been discovered...

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    So it appears that the proposed soft-bodied fossils of the Cambrian animals really were not present.

    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)

  • #2
    This really an oldie moldy topic, and a bad start to a 'Ground Hog Day' thread with fallacious reference from an Intelligent Design website. No peer reviewed scientific articles to support your negative 'argument from ignorance' as to what is and is not known in the fossil evidence.

    Part of the bottom line as to what has been cited before is scientists are not 'dumb founded,' an there is fossil evidence for intermediates in the evolution of early hard bodied animals like trilobites.
    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


    • #3
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Source: Evolution News

      Where are the proposed thousands of intermediate forms that led to Cambrian animals like trilobites? Evolutionists were dumbfounded by the silence in the fossil record and had to come up with a ready explanation for this conflicting evidence. The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found (Meyer et al. 2007: 144), because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

      "Deposits bearing exceptionally preserved soft-bodied fossils are unusually common in Cambrian strata; more than 40 are now known.” Thus, we definitely should expect to find the postulated ancestors of the Cambrian animal phyla in Burgess Shale-type localities of the preceding Ediacaran era. The artifact hypothesis suggested that there are no such localities. However, in the past years several fossiliferous Burgess Shale-type (BST) biota from the Ediacaran have been discovered...

      Source

      © Copyright Original Source


      So it appears that the proposed soft-bodied fossils of the Cambrian animals really were not present.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      Didn't we already go through this on at least two separate threads roughly six months ago?

      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


      • #4
        Source: Evolution News

        in the past years several fossiliferous Burgess Shale-type (BST) biota from the Ediacaran have been discovered:

        Pusa Shale of Spain (Brasier et al. 1979, Jensen & Palacios 2016)
        Chopoghlu Shale / Soltanieh Formation of northern Iran (Ford & Breed 1972)
        Khatyspyt Formation of Siberia (Grazhdankin et al. 2008)
        Miaohe biota of southern China (Xiao et al. 2002, Tang et al. 2008, Ye et al. 2017)
        Lantian biota of southern China (Yuan et al. 2011, 2013)
        Jinxian biota of northern China (Luo et al. 2016)
        Zuun-Arts biota of western Mongolia (Dornbos et al. 2016, Hassell et al. 2017)

        Guess What?

        None of these Ediacaran biotas yielded any uncontroversial fossil record of animals!

        © Copyright Original Source


        Papers here! Burgess-type shale deposits, and no appearance of animals, so this is not arguing from ignorance, this is a failed prediction.

        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


        • #5
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Didn't we already go through this on at least two separate threads roughly six months ago?
          Yes, we discussed pre-Cambrian fossils, but the possibility of soft-bodied unfossilized animals in the pre-Cambrian was still a question. And that question is addressed here...

          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


          • #6
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Yes, we discussed pre-Cambrian fossils, but the possibility of soft-bodied unfossilized animals in the pre-Cambrian was still a question. And that question is addressed here...

            Blessings,
            Lee
            There are no unfossilized soft bodied animals in the Pre-Cambrian. They are all fossilized.
            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


            • #7
              Kind of funny that the bozos at Evolution News are running with that only a few months after the announcement of the fossil that shows they're wrong.

              https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02556-x

              Neuroscience has generated persuasive evidence that brains exist. But the Discovery Institute keeps finding ways to raise doubts about that.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                Kind of funny that the bozos at Evolution News are running with that only a few months after the announcement of the fossil that shows they're wrong.

                https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02556-x
                Well, they didn't miss that article:

                Source: Evolution News

                Since the trace making would imply muscular mobility and sediment displacement through mouth, gut, and anus, they inferred these bilaterian features, even though they are not preserved. ... the Helminthoidichnites could indeed be, not animal traces at all, but simply inorganic artifacts. The latter possibility was experimentally demonstrated for most Ediacaran “traces” (including traces very similar to Helminthoidichnites) by Mariotti et al. (2016), who found that these traces could be exactly reproduced as folding and shrinking artifacts of stirred up bacterial mats. Even if Helminthoidichnites should be a genuine burrowing trace of an organism, and even if Ikaria should be that organism, I suggest that it belonged either to giant protists that even today can cause such traces on the sea floor (Matz et al. 2008), or to an extinct specialized branch of the typical Ediacaran organisms of the coelenterate (cnidarian) grade, which independently acquired a worm-like habitus and burrowing lifestyle. After all, we know that the coelenterate body plan dominated the Ediacaran fauna and might readily have filled the free niche of marine worms.

                Source

                © Copyright Original Source



                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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Well, they didn't miss that article:

                  Source: Evolution News

                  Since the trace making would imply muscular mobility and sediment displacement through mouth, gut, and anus, they inferred these bilaterian features, even though they are not preserved. ... the Helminthoidichnites could indeed be, not animal traces at all, but simply inorganic artifacts. The latter possibility was experimentally demonstrated for most Ediacaran “traces” (including traces very similar to Helminthoidichnites) by Mariotti et al. (2016), who found that these traces could be exactly reproduced as folding and shrinking artifacts of stirred up bacterial mats. Even if Helminthoidichnites should be a genuine burrowing trace of an organism, and even if Ikaria should be that organism, I suggest that it belonged either to giant protists that even today can cause such traces on the sea floor (Matz et al. 2008), or to an extinct specialized branch of the typical Ediacaran organisms of the coelenterate (cnidarian) grade, which independently acquired a worm-like habitus and burrowing lifestyle. After all, we know that the coelenterate body plan dominated the Ediacaran fauna and might readily have filled the free niche of marine worms.

                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  Comedy gold.

                  "We have all these traces that look like they came from worms"
                  "I don't think it's worms, and you haven't found any worms then"
                  "Well, here's a worm"
                  "i refuse to believe that's actually a worm"

                  On a somewhat more serious note, it's rare to see motivated reasoning that's quite that blatant. I'm surprised that the behavioral science community hasn't recognized these guys for the resource they are.

                  And that's not even getting into the fact that they decided to tackle this subject only after it was incredibly obvious they were wrong. I can only speculate about the motivations there.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    "We have all these traces that look like they came from worms"
                    "I don't think it's worms, and you haven't found any worms then"
                    "Well, here's a worm"
                    "i refuse to believe that's actually a worm"
                    Well, they might be from worm-like creatures: "... or to an extinct specialized branch of the typical Ediacaran organisms of the coelenterate (cnidarian) grade, which independently acquired a worm-like habitus and burrowing lifestyle."

                    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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Source: Evolution News

                      in the past years several fossiliferous Burgess Shale-type (BST) biota from the Ediacaran have been discovered:

                      Pusa Shale of Spain (Brasier et al. 1979, Jensen & Palacios 2016)
                      Chopoghlu Shale / Soltanieh Formation of northern Iran (Ford & Breed 1972)
                      Khatyspyt Formation of Siberia (Grazhdankin et al. 2008)
                      Miaohe biota of southern China (Xiao et al. 2002, Tang et al. 2008, Ye et al. 2017)
                      Lantian biota of southern China (Yuan et al. 2011, 2013)
                      Jinxian biota of northern China (Luo et al. 2016)
                      Zuun-Arts biota of western Mongolia (Dornbos et al. 2016, Hassell et al. 2017)

                      Guess What?

                      None of these Ediacaran biotas yielded any uncontroversial fossil record of animals!

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      Papers here! Burgess-type shale deposits, and no appearance of animals, so this is not arguing from ignorance, this is a failed prediction.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Words fail me beyond measure at the desperation of the ID movement to publish this rubbish.
                      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

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                      48 responses
                      135 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Sparko
                      by Sparko
                       
                      Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                      16 responses
                      74 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post shunyadragon  
                      Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                      6 responses
                      47 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post shunyadragon  
                      Working...
                      X