Questions for "evolutionists" - explaining the Cambrian explosion

Continuing in the questions for "evolutionists" series, Mike asks:

How do Darwinists? explain the cambrian explosion? i know there isnt a logical explaination but it kinda points toward creation doesnt it?

First of all, using the term Darwinist, like evolutionist is a tactical ploy on behalf of the creationists. They intend to imply that acceptance of the evidence is equivalent to an ideology, like their own creationism. It's not, it's a science. However it does have its benefits, you know when you're talking to some kind of creationist or evolution denier because they almost exclusively use this sort of language.

Anyway to get to Mike's point or more accurately the point he's repeating from some creationist website, which falsely implies the Cambrian explosion is a problem for biologists.

The Cambrian explosion, unlike its name suggests wasn't an explosion and it certainly wasn't a fast explosion. It refers to a period of about 50 million years over which we see an increasing number of species in the fossil record.

There can be several reasons for this.

Such as increasing oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's early atmosphere contained no free oxygen, all the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by photosynthesis and this has been steadily increasing over billions of years.

Or an earlier extinction event such as the Ediacaran mass extinction. Life often rebounds with relatively rapid diversification after an extinction event to fill all the available niches. Just look out how mammals have diversified after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The evolution of skeletons, many species in the pre-Cambrian were soft bodied creatures, in the Cambrian we start to see increasing numbers of creatures with exoskeletons like trilobites (pictured below), this could be due to increasing numbers of animals with hard parts, but it can also simply be an artefact of fossilisation - animals like trilobites fossilise much easier than animals like jellyfish, simply because of their skeletons.

Trilobite

Or something simple like increasing size of planktonic animals, which being larger would have fallen faster to the sea floor when they died could have opened up all new niches deeper in the oceans, which life diversified to fill.

And so on. In science very rarely is one thing the answer, its often a combination of multiple things working together.

The Cambrian explosion certainly isn't evidence for a biblical 6 day creation like you imply.

i mean there were single celled organisms them boom? fossils of almost every species created or known to man? amazing

Sorry Mike, you're wrong. Dead wrong.

There was multi-cellular life before the Cambrian, most if not all of it was soft-bodied, like jellyfish and worms.

Lastly, fossils of *almost* every species known to man? Do you even know what life was alive in the Cambrian? Obviously not as you're trying to imply that all animals and plants suddenly appeared in the Cambrian, they didn't. No animal or plant you'd recognise today was alive in the Cambrian, there were no land animals, no land plants, all life was in the oceans. What we do find are animals like trilobites and opabinia as shown below.

Opabinia

8 comments

Comment from: Cabie [Visitor]
Cabie
2 stars

Seems like you should have some sources to back you up.

Also, bunnies is the worst argument I've ever heard.

4th February 2011 @ 06:01
Comment from: Colin [Visitor]
Colin

Evolution is such a dying theory. People keep trying to kick it to make it work, yet nothing happens. The fossil record is complete, the more fossils we dig up the more questions we have. All we have to support evolution is fruitful imaginations and an artists rendering what the java man MAY have looked like if they found more than a skull cap and some teeth.

16th February 2011 @ 14:22
Comment from: EvolUtion Kid [Visitor]  
EvolUtion Kid
5 stars

Wide acceptance of an idea in not proof of its validity....

24th August 2011 @ 15:55
Comment from: joe Sanchez [Visitor]  
joe Sanchez
2 stars

The reason why the Cambrian Explosion is hard for most honest scientist to explain isn't necessarily what is found in the layer it is what isn't found in the layers above and below it. While there is a huge explosion of life not just in the amount but in the variety of life in the Cambrian Layer, there is virtually no similarities in the layers below it. There are no transitional fossils and very few fossils at all. The signs of life we do fine aren't invertebrates but mostly soft worms. After the Cambrian layer you find the same thing- very little fossilized remains and the ones that you do find have virtually no similarities. And during this 50 million span these fossils remain completely stable- no mutations, no evolution. That is why some of the top scientist (who are honest with themselves) have a hard time giving any explanation for this phenomena.

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65),

5th November 2011 @ 14:10
Comment from: Greame [Visitor]
Greame
5 stars

Creationists are either dumb delusional or misled. Explain dinosaurs. Yep you can't. Dragons? where the heck are the wings? How in the world is that T-rex gonna fly, even with wings? And how the heck is the world is the wold population gonna start from only two people? That's a lot of inbreeding, and how come we don't have 3 legs or 20 toes by now?

2nd February 2012 @ 01:35
Comment from: Brent [Visitor]
Brent

In reference to - fossil bunnies. Have you ever seen a live rabbit swimming on the bottom of the ocean? The Cambrian represents the animals which were the first casualties of the global flood, thus no bunnies would be found in it. Notice that the majority of these species are bottom dwelling sea creatures which is exactly what you would expect to find in a global flood scenario.

21st September 2014 @ 01:05
Comment from: Brent [Visitor]
Brent

Creationists are either dumb delusional or misled. Explain dinosaurs. Yep you can't. Dragons? where the heck are the wings? How in the world is that T-rex gonna fly, even with wings? And how the heck is the world is the wold population gonna start from only two people? That's a lot of inbreeding, and how come we don't have 3 legs or 20 toes by now?

Have you ever been to India?

21st September 2014 @ 01:06
Comment from: Sam [Visitor]  
Sam

"Creationists are either dumb delusional or misled. Explain dinosaurs. Yep you can't. Dragons? where the heck are the wings? How in the world is that T-rex gonna fly, even with wings? And how the heck is the world is the wold population gonna start from only two people? That's a lot of inbreeding, and how come we don't have 3 legs or 20 toes by now?

Have you ever been to India?"

Sure it might happen in some areas but the fact that is not common in all societies leads your argument invalid.

A dying theory? Yeah right. Deny it and preach your biblical crap all you want. just because you deny something or don't want something to be true doesn't mean that it's not and just because you beleive something because its the xsimplest and easiest way to understand something means nothing. Your inability to comprehend evolution does not make it fake.

19th January 2015 @ 06:36


Form is loading...