The Cambrian and Precambrian life appear suddenly
And without any evidence of evolution. It's the thing that disproves the theory of evolution. Even Darwin admitted that. Why do people still believe. Religion and God aside
56-60, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
It does not disprove evolution at all, even if was hard to square with Darwin's theory in his time.
Life did [i]not [/i]appear suddenly but advanced in variety from existing forms very rapidly, i.e. within a relatively few million years.
Why do some people so desperately want to believe evolution "wrong"?
Life did [i]not [/i]appear suddenly but advanced in variety from existing forms very rapidly, i.e. within a relatively few million years.
Why do some people so desperately want to believe evolution "wrong"?
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@ArishMell I'm not sure why people don't want to believe in it. The evidence is so vast in favour of it and biology makes a lot more sense through the lens of evolution. Most Christian churches believe in evolution. When I was religious, I believed that God created us through the process of evolution; why do they need to cling to the literal truth of the Bible?
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@ArishMell no evidence of anything gradual. These animals just show up suddenly in the fossil record
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@JimboSaturn what evidence is there for trilobites having a gradual evolution. None. These animals just show up. There is now evidence that shows no evolution
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@Axeroberts I'm not sure if you are correct. In Darwin's time, there was not a complete fossil record. What about the abundance of evidence of evolution after the Cambrian period?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Axeroberts Yes, but so do all fossils. The Ammonites (Jurassic animals) evolved at least as rapidly (in geological terms), if not more so. What we know of these ancient animals is only by what is found, and that tends to be apparently-sudden appearance often useable as "zone fossils" for correlation, but it does not necessarily mean each had no precursors.
The Cambrian Explosion has not, as far as I know, been satisfactorily explained but nor have many things in the natural sciences. It certainly does not mean rejecting a vast, growing and ever-refining body of knowledge for no reason. That's like breaking up a half-done jigsaw because you have not found the last edge piece.
The Cambrian Explosion has not, as far as I know, been satisfactorily explained but nor have many things in the natural sciences. It certainly does not mean rejecting a vast, growing and ever-refining body of knowledge for no reason. That's like breaking up a half-done jigsaw because you have not found the last edge piece.
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@ArishMell but there was no fossils and then boom there was
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Axeroberts There are older fossils, but the sudden (in geological time terms) flowering of life in the Cambrian, whilst still puzzling, does not "disprove" the basics principles of evolution. Animals do not just suddenly appear by magic, fully-formed. Even if that's what you want!
Evolution does not proceed in a nice neat, steady arithmetical progression but in slow or rapid phases that don't appear to have a regular pattern. Whole groups of organisms can develop a lot more quickly or slowly, and last for much longer or shorter times, than those around them.
One thing that is even more puzzling than some of the gaps in palaeontological understanding is why some people are so desperate, even calling it a lie, to want no-one to understand it. Have you any idea why they do?
Evolution does not proceed in a nice neat, steady arithmetical progression but in slow or rapid phases that don't appear to have a regular pattern. Whole groups of organisms can develop a lot more quickly or slowly, and last for much longer or shorter times, than those around them.
One thing that is even more puzzling than some of the gaps in palaeontological understanding is why some people are so desperate, even calling it a lie, to want no-one to understand it. Have you any idea why they do?
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@ArishMell i think it is funny how people hold on to a 150 year old theory based on believing the cell was a blob.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Axeroberts Even funnier is hanging onto a notion invented by no-one knows who, getting for twenty times as long ago...
As for a cell being a blob, well, it is. Just a tiny protein bag of gel with a DNA and other molecules inside it.
I notice you did not answer my question so assume you don't know what motivates creationists either.
As for a cell being a blob, well, it is. Just a tiny protein bag of gel with a DNA and other molecules inside it.
I notice you did not answer my question so assume you don't know what motivates creationists either.
Axeroberts · 56-60, M
@ArishMell i am not a creationist at all. And do some research. The cell is a very complex structure. Nothing like you just described. But remember there are 3.4 billion base pairs of DNA. To me random mutations which actually degrade things is surely not the answer.