tgamble

Some interesting discussion going on at theology web.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...5&pagenumber=2

I thought some people here might be interested in Socrates take on the fossil record.

"I agree completely that species are the only real representatives in the tree of life and that the other classifications are groupings of species with various degrees of shared characteristics. Of course I already knew that and it raises some other interesting ramifications which I will save for a more appropriate thread.

Be that as it may this does not negate the fact that the lifeforms in the Cambrian can be grouped into different phyla and according to the evolutionary scenario this shouldn't be possible unless the different species in the Cambrian had already developed characteristics that are used today to group lifeforms into those known phyla. In other words the species found in the Cambrian had already developed those characteristics that today are used to classify lifeforms into distinct phyla on the tree of life. There appears to have been a whole lot of evolution of distinct phyla characteristics going on in the Cambrian (and very little ever since).

It is frequently stated that these Cambrian lifeforms were "primitive" but this is a loaded word with heavy evolutionary implications. One might say that many current lifeforms are "primitive" depending on one's view of what that term means. I have heard evolutionists say that the eye of the trilobite was far from primitive and in some ways equally sophisticated as the human eye.

As far as the trace fossils found below the Cambrian they are few and far between and most seem to be quite different than those found in the Cambrian and certainly it is unclear where they fit in classification schemes. Many of them might deserve there own unique branches in the "tree of life".

I didn't expect evolutionists to roll over and play dead by what I posted about the fossil record for one can always invent stories to explain any possible findings in nature. After all, that is what evolutionist mainly do and they get pretty good at it with practice.

As far as where I get my information from, in this case I am using mostly Gould with some Mayr thrown in. I previously mentioned that most of my reading on these subjects is from the leading recognized "experts" in the various fields."

Alix Nenuphar

Having consulted the thread you mentioned, I am astonished at the entire message board (TheologyWeb, of course, not Infidels).

Is this common practise amongst evolution/creation discussion boards? Sloppy thinking, overreliance on fundamentalist websites, gratuitous ad hominems?

nj_heathens

What rot.

Species is a very fluid term. For instance, the finches studied by Darwin had evolved different beak sizes depending on the local food supply. Because finches on a particular island were largely isolated from those on other islands they no longer interbred. At some point, groups of finches evolving without contact with each other would reach a point at which they could not interbreed even if they were to meet.

But had that point been reached at the time the Beagle came to the area? We don't really know.

We DO know that at some point before Darwin arrived, they were all one species. And further into the past they and some other birds were one species. And so on.

Gould's hypothesis of "species selection" is not proven, nor can it be shown to do much if it even exists. Evolution acts on lineages of individual organisms, not on species as a whole.There are also many Cambrian phyla that completely died out by the Devonian period.

The lack of pre-Cambrian fossils is easy to explain. Multicellular animals did not develop shells, bones or other hard body parts before then. Creatures without hard body parts generally do not leave fossils.

The point of the Cambrian "explosion" is also simple. We know that modern ecosystems comprise a system of ecological niches, or ways of making a living. But early in the history of multicellular life, the niches had to be invented. Because the ecology was primitive, a relatively large number of body plans (phyla) were successful for a time.

Many of these phyla were not successful over the long term, however. The advent of fish, who swam faster and more efficiently than most invertebrates almost certainly caused the extinction of most of the exotic invertebrates.Actually, NO new phyla have appeared since the Cambrian ended. That is a consequence of the tremendous success of the phyla that survived. By the end of the Cambrian, complex and sophisticated ecosystems were in place. Food chains were established, with voracious predators available to eat any new form of life that might appear.It is true that the pre-Cambrian fossil record is extremely poor. But that does not indicate that the Cambrian phyla had no ancestors.

Don't forget that the "pre-Cambrian period" covers at least 3 billion years. We EXPECT to find fossils significantly different from those in the Cambrian period.

Mr. Heathen

SULPHUR

One of the primitive lifeforms from the cambrian or precambrian ? are the stromatalites. These seem to be surviving quite well today. How many other types of livivg thing can be traced back 3.8 billion years?

keyser_soze

You want to hear funny? My wife, being a lukewarm christian, goes to theology web on occasion. She is always going off on turkel and a few others-like suckcrates, anyway, long story short. Apparently, my sister in laws priest is on there last week(or maybe week before iirc) and he points out that some of the forum members are being a little *pissy*, and they slam him. Everyone is tripping over themselves to defend their faith, from one of their own guys! How funny is that? And this guy(I've only met him once, a decent enough guy I suppose) is being hammered, them telling him that he will, in time, find a role for god that he can fulfill. The guys a freaking priest! Has one of the larger churches, and apparently brings new people into the church on a weekly basis. With friends like he has on theology web, who needs enemies? I say leave them alone, they shoot themselves more effectively than we can. After all, when have you known a fundy to listen to common sense? Let them abuse each other!

lpetrich

The oldest stromatolites are from 3.45-billion-year-old rocks in western Australia.

However, the older stromatolites may not have been created by cyanobacteria, but instead by more primitive photosynthetic bacteria, some of which survive to the present day.

Such bacteria have simpler photosynthetic systems, and they often work from hydrogen sulfide or other such substances instead of from water.

Vorkosigan

Sloppy thinking, overreliance on fundamentalist websites, gratuitous ad hominems?

Just visit the poli sci forums, where they will display a comforting bloodthirstiness.

SULPHUR

to vort.......... are you in the right thread

SULPHUR

Sorry I was a bit extravagant with the age,I will settle for 3.5 billion years. Many of the stromatalites in WA are thought to be about 4000 y old and in formed in sea water , an oxidizing environ ment.

Ergaster

Just to clarify: the person who wrote the post you quote was Socratism, not Socrates. They are two different folks (and not all that difficult to tell apart, really....)