Life From Dirt?

[Valjean]

Oh brother.
Why don’t you google it?
Remember, I said “obvious” precursors, like jellyfish are not obvious precursors to trilobites.

Since trilobites are found to be one of the most prolific organisms in the Cambrian, we’ll go with that: show me an obvious ancestor to trilobites.

You won’t find any tri-lobed creatures prior to them.

Yes, we don't have fossil evidence of every step of this slow, post extinction, taxonomic radiation. We're lucky to find much of anything from half a billion years ago, especially considering the small delicate life-forms of the period.

We know the evolution happened, but trying to attribute it to divine magic seems a desperate reach.

 

[Little Dragon]

Oh brother.
Why don’t you google it?
Remember, I said “obvious” precursors, like jellyfish are not obvious precursors to trilobites.

Since trilobites are found to be one of the most prolific organisms in the Cambrian, we’ll go with that: show me an obvious ancestor to trilobites.

You won’t find any tri-lobed creatures prior to them.

Trilobites did not evolve from jellyfish. They are from completely different phyla.
Why don't you google it?

"Those possible early ancestors, such as Spriggina floundersi -- found in the 550 million year old Ediacaran-age rocks of Australia -- appear to have possessed rudimentary body segments and even primitive genal spines."

The First Trilobites | AMNH

Trilobites emerged fully formed upon the Cambrian scene. By the time, some 521 million years ago, that the initial members of this ancient line of arthropods began filling ocean...

www.amnh.org

 

[Little Dragon]

We know the evolution happened, but trying to attribute it to divine magic seems a desperate reach.

Desperate and utterly absurd.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh brother.
Why don’t you google it?
Remember, I said “obvious” precursors, like jellyfish are not obvious precursors to trilobites.

Since trilobites are found to be one of the most prolific organisms in the Cambrian, we’ll go with that: show me an obvious ancestor to trilobites.

You won’t find any tri-lobed creatures prior to them.

Your use of obvious has no scientific relevance what are described as precursors in the Edicarian for Cambrian life. Like other fundamentalists, you frame your objections without any knowledge of science and in a manner that no evidence would be acceptable. There are morphologically structurally similar simpler animals in the Edicarian not just Jelly fish. Your upfront hostile rejection of evolution based on an ancient tribal agenda and ancient text without provenance in history negates constructive dialogue on the subject of evolution.

You did not respond to my previous post describing the Edicarian ancestors of Cambrian life. Still waiting for you to respond.

Here is another reference concerning Trilobites. Britannica is a little dated more will follow. Also the boundary between the Edicarian and the Cambrian is not as sudden as you describe and occurs over tens of millions of years or more. I missed it, Post #302 gave a more recent reference than this one.

Trilobite | Cambrian period, Extinction, Arthropod, & Facts

Trilobite, any member of a group of extinct fossil arthropods easily recognized by their distinctive three-lobed, three-segmented form. Trilobites were exclusively marine animals that first appeared 521 million years ago near the beginning of the Cambrian Period and persisted into the Permian...

www.britannica.com

Trilobite, any member of a group of extinct fossil arthropods easily recognized by their distinctive three-lobed, three-segmented form. Trilobites, exclusively marine animals, first appeared at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, about 542 million years ago, when they dominated the seas. Although they became less abundant in succeeding geologic periods, a few forms persisted into the Permian Period, which ended about 251 million years ago.


Because trilobites appear fully developed in the Cambrian Period, it appears likely that the ancestral trilobites originated during the Ediacaran Period (630 million to 542 million years ago) of Precambrian times. An organism that may be ancestral to the trilobites, as well as to other arthropods, may be represented by Spriggina, which is known from Precambrian shallow-water marine deposits in Australia.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh brother.
Why don’t you google it?
Remember, I said “obvious” precursors, like jellyfish are not obvious precursors to trilobites.

Since trilobites are found to be one of the most prolific organisms in the Cambrian, we’ll go with that: show me an obvious ancestor to trilobites.

You won’t find any tri-lobed creatures prior to them.

You need to go beyond just googling blindly to justify your biased agenda and acquire a less biased understanding of evolution. There is absolutely no evidence to support an alternative explanation based on ancient tribal text.

The article reflects more definitive discoveries and research on the origin of Trilobites published 2022. It is likely you will not understand the scientific language considering your comprehension limits, but nonetheless, it answers your question for the present knowledge of Trilobite origins and addresses the unanswered questions concerning their origin. Note bold to possibly help you understand.

Reassessing a cryptic history of early trilobite evolution - Communications Biology

A reassessment of early trilobite phylogenetic relationships and palaeobiogeographic patterns suggests that a cryptic evolutionary history is unlikely for this group. The abrupt appearance of trilobites is likely to closely reflect their evolutionary origins, and may be explained by survivorship...

www.nature.com

Trilobites are a clade of total-group euarthropods whose first appearance datum (FAD) marks the boundary between the Terreneuvian and provisional Cambrian Series 2 (currently dated to c. 521 Ma)12,13. They are one of the largest and most successful Paleozoic groups, persisting for some 270 million years, and represented by over 22,000 described species14,15. This excellent fossil record—a result of their easily-preserved, biomineralized exoskeleton that was molted many times during life—can be used to address important questions concerning early animal evolution16,17. Trilobites have been viewed as exemplary for the argument of deep bilaterian (and therefore metazoan) divergence dates, and formed an important part of the argument for early proponents of this view4,18,19. One reason for this is that trilobites supposedly show substantial provincialism when they appear in the fossil record, being separated into two major biogeographic areas in the early Cambrian: the ‘olenelline’ province (e.g., Laurentia, Baltica) and the ‘redlichiine’ province of Gondwana (including Antarctica, Australia, China and India, amongst other regions), with a transitional zone (sometimes referred to as the ‘bigotinid’ province) occurring in areas such as West Gondwana and Siberia20,21,22 (Fig. 1; we use suborders here23). It has generally been assumed that trilobites must have a cryptic evolutionary history for such a pattern to be produced, and that observed distributions of taxa are a result of vicariance, in this case resulting from supercontinent breakup and the subsequent isolation of certain paleocontinents. These patterns have been linked to either the breakup of Rodinia (c. 700–800 Ma)19 or the ephemeral Pannotia (c. 550–600 Ma)24,25,26, although the refinement of molecular clock estimates suggests that the former in particular is unlikely. Given the accepted position of trilobites as total-group euarthropods27, linking of these biogeographic patterns to supercontinent breakup in the Neoproterozoic has been used to support the argument for a deep, cryptic history of arthropod evolution, and early animal evolution more generally4,18,19,24,25. However, this reasoning is based on two major assumptions: (a) that the earliest trilobites already show established biogeographic provincialism and phylogenetic diversity; and (b) that observed biogeographic patterns result from vicariance rather than dispersal. It also raises questions about the early trilobite fossil record that are not easily answered. For example, if a biomineralized exoskeleton and associated traits are synapomorphies of the group, why are Terreneuvian trilobites absent from the fossil record despite an adequate shelly record across the same period?

Arthropod traces in the Terreneuvian​

Trace fossils have also been used to argue for a cryptic history of trilobite evolution. Arthropod traces from the Terreneuvian such as Rusophycus have been attributed to trilobites34 (despite appearing c. 10–15 million years prior to the first appearance of the group35), although some authors have since suggested that these could have been produced by other arthropods36,37. Trilobites are members of a much larger diversity of Cambrian euarthropods, the great majority of which are non-mineralized. Many of these (like trilobites) exhibit a series of biramous (‘two-branched’), gnathobase-bearing appendages along the anterior-posterior axis38,39,40. In particular, the Artiopoda (a large clade of trilobite-like euarthropods, including trilobites) generally have very similar appendages38, and this is clearly a primitive trait of the group. Many artiopodans also exhibit comparable overall morphologies to trilobites, and some of these likely filled similar ecological niches. Thus, it might be expected that such taxa produced similar traces across the early history of artiopodans, which must have occurred prior to the FAD of trilobites (Fig. 2). It is even possible that more basal non-mineralized stem-euarthropods (e.g., fuxianhuiids41 and Parapeytoia42, which exhibit the same basic appendage structure) could produce similar traces. The recent interpretation of Cambrian Series 2 (Stage 4) Rusophycus from Canada as being produced by a non-mineralized crustacean-like arthropod43 supports the idea that these early traces could be produced by non-trilobites. It has also been pointed out that although trace fossils like Rusophycus and Cruziana occur after the Permian mass extinction (e.g., in the Triassic44,45), this is not considered evidence of post-Permian trilobites46 (these are also attributed to crustacean-like taxa). Why should we consider the presence of these traces prior to c. 521 Ma in a different light, when other obvious candidates for producing them are present? Based on the above, a more literal reading of the trilobite fossil record is not incongruent with the trace fossil record. Rather, it supports the interpretation of these traces representing the early diversification of total-group euarthropods starting in the early Terreneuvian (Fortunian), more derived artiopodan-type taxa later in the Terreneuvian (e.g., the more ‘typical’ Rusophycus occurring in Stage 235) and allows additional time for the evolution of trilobites before their FAD at c. 521 Ma.

A uniting feature of this group are their similar biramous appendages and it is likely that some of the non-trilobite artiopodans produced the same kinds of traces as trilobites (e.g., Rusophyscus, Cruziana). If trilobites arose close to when they appear in the fossil record (c. 521 Ma) there must have been a substantial earlier history of artiopodans (and other more distantly related taxa), thus obviating the requirement to suggest trilobites produced these traces in the Terreneuvian. Topology based on fig. 6b of Ortega-Hernández et al.38.

The suggestion of non-mineralized trilobites in the Terreneuvian or earlier is shown to be highly unparsimonious, implying rampant convergence of structures associated with exoskeletal biomineralization in all major early trilobite lineages, and abandonment of the synapomorphies uniting the clade. This suggests that no credible reason has been proposed for the absence of Terreneuvian trilobites in the fossil record, given the assumption of a substantial cryptic evolutionary history. Despite previous statements to the contrary, when trilobites appear in the fossil record they show limited provincialism and relatively low phylogenetic diversity. Even when more distinct faunas develop across the remainder of Cambrian Series 2 there is considerable overlap between these, and patterns of diversification suggest this is occurring in real time (rather than resulting from divergence prior to the FAD of trilobites). Given the change in our understanding of the relative importance of vicariance and dispersal in explaining modern biogeographic patterns over the last several decades—and the general observation that modern marine invertebrate faunas do not show vicariant patterns resulting from continental separation—trilobite biogeographic patterns are unlikely to result from this form of vicariance. The mismatch between recent morphological clock estimates (that suggest trilobites probably emerged in the Fortunian) and an even more literal reading of the fossil record can be explained by effects such as the push of the past, which anticipates higher rates of diversification during the initial radiation of clades—particularly in the case of very long-lived and successful groups like trilobites. We conclude that the FAD of trilobites closely reflects their evolutionary origins, and that there is no compelling evidence to suggest an extended cryptic evolutionary history for this group.

 

[Little Dragon]

Like other fundamentalists, you frame your objections without any knowledge of science and in a manner that no evidence would be acceptable.

It's not obvious that the Hyrax is more closely related to Elephants than any other mammal alive on Earth today.

Given that Hyraxes look more like chubby rodents than Elephants.

Yet there is no mystery why this is so. It's just evolutionary history. Two different species of the same lineage, following very different evolutionary paths.

Extremists argue from a position of unsustainable incredulity and willful denial. As we all are keenly aware.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes it is, period. It is extrapolated and calculated from known existing phenomenon.

It's guesswork.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you’d look through my posting history, @Little Dragon , you’d see I’ve pasted links to many papers. On this topic, here you go:

Paleontologist Buries Another Proposed Cambrian Precursor | Evolution News

Günter Bechly explains why the Precambrian fossil Namacalathus fails as a transitional precursor to the Cambrian explosion.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s a paper highlighting more evidence:

More Cambrian Woes for Evolution | Evolution News

New fossils continue to put pressure on the evolutionary narrative of gradualism.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s another one that is even newer:

Biology Journal Betrays Cause for Darwin Doubt | Evolution News

The strength of a theory can be gauged by how well it stands up to attacks and how well it incorporates new evidence.

evolutionnews.org

And the Cambrian evidence keeps on eroding evolutionists’ hopes:

Jellyfish Originated in the Cambrian Explosion | Evolution News

Remarkably, these animals can be placed within the crown group of the living cnidarian clade Medusozoa, which is not exactly what Darwinists should expect.

evolutionnews.org

You might not like the website, but look up their sources; Evolution News rarely posts anything, without linking supporting data from evolutionist sources.

Don’t call me a “sausage” (whatever that’s s’posed to mean, I doubt it’s flattering). Ad homs, like name-calling (and attacking a person’s knowledge and ethics like @shunyadragon tries), only makes the attacker’s arguments look weak.

And shunyadragon, you once again misrepresented what I said. Referencing Colin Patterson & S. J. Gould, I didn’t say they bemoaned “aspects of evolution.”

I said they bemoaned “the evidence the fossil record provides” in support of it.

Because they did….

“The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
(Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

And that was in 1995! The gap for evolution proponents to explain is even greater now, since the time frame for the Cambrian explosion has been narrowed even more.


“Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks."
Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24.
(Transitionals, anyone?)

There’s no wonder he proposed the controversial “punctuated equilibrium” with Niles Eldredge.

—————————-

Colin Patterson:

"Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.


There are other quotes from CD evolution proponents which TalkOrigins has commented on also, but they rarely present substantial rebuttals.

I hope you check them out!


So long.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you’d look through my posting history, @Little Dragon , you’d see I’ve pasted links to many papers. On this topic, here you go:

Paleontologist Buries Another Proposed Cambrian Precursor | Evolution News

Günter Bechly explains why the Precambrian fossil Namacalathus fails as a transitional precursor to the Cambrian explosion.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s a paper highlighting more evidence:

More Cambrian Woes for Evolution | Evolution News

New fossils continue to put pressure on the evolutionary narrative of gradualism.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s another one that is even newer:

Biology Journal Betrays Cause for Darwin Doubt | Evolution News

The strength of a theory can be gauged by how well it stands up to attacks and how well it incorporates new evidence.

evolutionnews.org

And the Cambrian evidence keeps on eroding evolutionists’ hopes:

Jellyfish Originated in the Cambrian Explosion | Evolution News

Remarkably, these animals can be placed within the crown group of the living cnidarian clade Medusozoa, which is not exactly what Darwinists should expect.

evolutionnews.org

You might not like the website, but look up their sources; Evolution News rarely posts anything, without linking supporting data from evolutionist sources.

Don’t call me a “sausage” (whatever that’s s’posed to mean, I doubt it’s flattering). Ad homs, like name-calling (and attacking a person’s knowledge and ethics like @shunyadragon tries), only makes the attacker’s arguments look weak.

And shunyadragon, you once again misrepresented what I said. Referencing Colin Patterson & S. J. Gould, I didn’t say they bemoaned “aspects of evolution.”

I said they bemoaned “the evidence the fossil record provides” in support of it.

Because they did….

“The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
(Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

And that was in 1995! The gap for evolution proponents to explain is even greater now, since the time frame for the Cambrian explosion has been narrowed even more.


“Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks."
Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24.
(Transitionals, anyone?)

There’s no wonder he proposed the controversial “punctuated equilibrium” with Niles Eldredge.

—————————-

Colin Patterson:

"Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.


There are other quotes from CD evolution proponents which TalkOrigins has commented on also, but they rarely present substantial rebuttals.

I hope you check them out!


So long.

Evolution is a Discovery Institute publication, like AIG they only selectively cite publications that justify their own agenda. It is a religious organization that only supports Science that supports its Creationist agenda.

All the references used by the Discovery Institute have ulterior religious motives, and hooks attached to the basic philosophy as described below.

Mission

Mind, not matter, is the source and crown of creation, the wellspring of human achievement. Conceived by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks and Christians, and elaborated in the American Founding…

www.discovery.org

Philosophy​

Mind, not matter, is the source and crown of creation, the wellspring of human achievement. Conceived by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks and Christians, and elaborated in the American Founding, Western culture has encouraged creativity, enabled discovery and upheld the uniqueness and dignity of human beings.

Linking religious, political, and economic liberty, the Judeo-Christian culture has established the rule of law, codified respect for human rights and conceived constitutional democracy. It has engendered development of science and technology, as well as economic creativity and innovation.

In contrast, the contemporary materialistic worldview denies the intrinsic dignity and freedom of human beings and enfeebles scientific creativity and technological innovation. Its vision of a closing circle of human possibilities on a planet of limited horizons summons instead the deadening ideologies of scarcity, conflict, mutual suspicion and despair.

I prefer to cite independent institutions of science not attached to religious agendas like the major universities of the world.

 

[Little Dragon]

If you’d look through my posting history, @Little Dragon , you’d see I’ve pasted links to many papers. On this topic, here you go:

Paleontologist Buries Another Proposed Cambrian Precursor | Evolution News

Günter Bechly explains why the Precambrian fossil Namacalathus fails as a transitional precursor to the Cambrian explosion.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s a paper highlighting more evidence:

More Cambrian Woes for Evolution | Evolution News

New fossils continue to put pressure on the evolutionary narrative of gradualism.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s another one that is even newer:

Biology Journal Betrays Cause for Darwin Doubt | Evolution News

The strength of a theory can be gauged by how well it stands up to attacks and how well it incorporates new evidence.

evolutionnews.org

And the Cambrian evidence keeps on eroding evolutionists’ hopes:

Jellyfish Originated in the Cambrian Explosion | Evolution News

Remarkably, these animals can be placed within the crown group of the living cnidarian clade Medusozoa, which is not exactly what Darwinists should expect.

evolutionnews.org

You might not like the website, but look up their sources; Evolution News rarely posts anything, without linking supporting data from evolutionist sources.

Don’t call me a “sausage” (whatever that’s s’posed to mean, I doubt it’s flattering). Ad homs, like name-calling (and attacking a person’s knowledge and ethics like @shunyadragon tries), only makes the attacker’s arguments look weak.

And shunyadragon, you once again misrepresented what I said. Referencing Colin Patterson & S. J. Gould, I didn’t say they bemoaned “aspects of evolution.”

I said they bemoaned “the evidence the fossil record provides” in support of it.

Because they did….

“The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
(Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

And that was in 1995! The gap for evolution proponents to explain is even greater now, since the time frame for the Cambrian explosion has been narrowed even more.


“Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks."
Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24.
(Transitionals, anyone?)

There’s no wonder he proposed the controversial “punctuated equilibrium” with Niles Eldredge.

—————————-

Colin Patterson:

"Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.


There are other quotes from CD evolution proponents which TalkOrigins has commented on also, but they rarely present substantial rebuttals.

I hope you check them out!


So long.

Please, save your obvious creationist website nonsense for those with the patience to even click on the link.

 

[Little Dragon]

Don’t call me a “sausage” (whatever that’s s’posed to mean, I doubt it’s flattering)

It means irrational person whom I am trying not to offend.

 

[Little Dragon]

I hope you check them out!

No. I would happily respond to any argument you make however.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please, save your obvious creationist website nonsense for those with the patience to even click on the link.

It's a down with science blog from the Disco Toot.

I would characterize it as a popular press form with an op/ed style and an obvious bias against science in favor of unfalsifiable belief. I imagine that target audience are those already in denial with little or no understanding of science and apparently limited interest in critical review.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's guesswork.

No. It would be guesswork for you because you refuse to learn the scientific method. We have been over this. Once ideas are tested and confirmed it is no longer guesswork. Why would you say this about someone else without being able to support your claim? That goes against Christian principles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you’d look through my posting history, @Little Dragon , you’d see I’ve pasted links to many papers. On this topic, here you go:

Paleontologist Buries Another Proposed Cambrian Precursor | Evolution News

Günter Bechly explains why the Precambrian fossil Namacalathus fails as a transitional precursor to the Cambrian explosion.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s a paper highlighting more evidence:

More Cambrian Woes for Evolution | Evolution News

New fossils continue to put pressure on the evolutionary narrative of gradualism.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s another one that is even newer:

Biology Journal Betrays Cause for Darwin Doubt | Evolution News

The strength of a theory can be gauged by how well it stands up to attacks and how well it incorporates new evidence.

evolutionnews.org

And the Cambrian evidence keeps on eroding evolutionists’ hopes:

Jellyfish Originated in the Cambrian Explosion | Evolution News

Remarkably, these animals can be placed within the crown group of the living cnidarian clade Medusozoa, which is not exactly what Darwinists should expect.

evolutionnews.org

You might not like the website, but look up their sources; Evolution News rarely posts anything, without linking supporting data from evolutionist sources.

Don’t call me a “sausage” (whatever that’s s’posed to mean, I doubt it’s flattering). Ad homs, like name-calling (and attacking a person’s knowledge and ethics like @shunyadragon tries), only makes the attacker’s arguments look weak.

And shunyadragon, you once again misrepresented what I said. Referencing Colin Patterson & S. J. Gould, I didn’t say they bemoaned “aspects of evolution.”

I said they bemoaned “the evidence the fossil record provides” in support of it.

Because they did….

“The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
(Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

And that was in 1995! The gap for evolution proponents to explain is even greater now, since the time frame for the Cambrian explosion has been narrowed even more.


“Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks."
Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24.
(Transitionals, anyone?)

There’s no wonder he proposed the controversial “punctuated equilibrium” with Niles Eldredge.

—————————-

Colin Patterson:

"Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.


There are other quotes from CD evolution proponents which TalkOrigins has commented on also, but they rarely present substantial rebuttals.

I hope you check them out!


So long.

If you want to be taken seriously do not use sources that were shown to be written by liars in a major lawsuit.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you’d look through my posting history, @Little Dragon , you’d see I’ve pasted links to many papers. On this topic, here you go:

Paleontologist Buries Another Proposed Cambrian Precursor | Evolution News

Günter Bechly explains why the Precambrian fossil Namacalathus fails as a transitional precursor to the Cambrian explosion.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s a paper highlighting more evidence:

More Cambrian Woes for Evolution | Evolution News

New fossils continue to put pressure on the evolutionary narrative of gradualism.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s another one that is even newer:

Biology Journal Betrays Cause for Darwin Doubt | Evolution News

The strength of a theory can be gauged by how well it stands up to attacks and how well it incorporates new evidence.

evolutionnews.org

And the Cambrian evidence keeps on eroding evolutionists’ hopes:

Jellyfish Originated in the Cambrian Explosion | Evolution News

Remarkably, these animals can be placed within the crown group of the living cnidarian clade Medusozoa, which is not exactly what Darwinists should expect.

evolutionnews.org

You might not like the website, but look up their sources; Evolution News rarely posts anything, without linking supporting data from evolutionist sources.

I addressed the problem of the Discovery Institute as a religious organization. Yes they cite some environmental sources, but only to justify selectively their religious agenda

Don’t call me a “sausage” (whatever that’s s’posed to mean, I doubt it’s flattering). Ad homs, like name-calling (and attacking a person’s knowledge and ethics like @shunyadragon tries), only makes the attacker’s arguments look weak.

And shunyadragon, you once again misrepresented what I said. Referencing Colin Patterson & S. J. Gould, I didn’t say they bemoaned “aspects of evolution.”

My bottom line objection is you parroting the Discovery Institute's selective methods to cite a selective, few, to discredit the sciences of evolution with supposed controversy. Regardless of what they believed Jay Gould and Colin Patterson do not necessarily represent the consensus of the majority of scientists related to evolution, but they both believed in evolution. Jay Gould is correct believing the evidence demonstrates punctuated equilibria.

I said they bemoaned “the evidence the fossil record provides” in support of it.

Because they did….

Jay Gould did not bemoan anything, he was correct to believe the evidence supported punctuated equilibria, Though Patterson may have had to deal with the conflict of his view and the overwhelming evidence for punctuated equilibria.

“The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
(Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

There has been a controversy in the past concerning whether gradualism or punctuated equilibria is the reality of the history of the evolution of life. Today the overwhelming evidence is for punctuated equilibria centered on the periodic major extinction events in geologic history.

Often selectively misquoted and misrepresented Darwin speculated in both gradualism and punctuated equilibria.

In the fourth edition (1866) of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."[87] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution.

The fact that this citation occurred in a later edition it is evidence is Darwin's belief changed to reflect the belief in punctuated equilibria.

And that was in 1995! The gap for evolution proponents to explain is even greater now, since the time frame for the Cambrian explosion has been narrowed even more.

This is your assumption based on a Discovery Institute perspective and not contemporary science.

“Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks."
Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24.
(Transitionals, anyone?)

There’s no wonder he proposed the controversial “punctuated equilibrium” with Niles Eldredge.

Stephen Jay Gould is correct in this conclusion.

Colin Patterson:

"Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.

Collin Patterson is wrong by the present evidence that the history of life on earth is punctuated by catastrophic changes in the environment that result in extinction events and rapid expansion of new life in the new environment. Evolution is environmental change-driven

There are other quotes from CD evolution proponents which TalkOrigins has commented on also, but they rarely present substantial rebuttals.

I hope you check them out!

So long.

Talk Origins is in the same dumpster as the Discovery Institute.

I doubt it is "so long" for long. If it is the above documents your contradictions with the evidence and science and your arguments have been round-filed and compacted.

 

[Valjean]

It's guesswork.

How so, if it's founded on good evidence?

 

[ChristineM]

It's guesswork.

Glad you can admit that you guess, i have stated how it is known, it's not my problem is you want to guess

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you’d look through my posting history, @Little Dragon , you’d see I’ve pasted links to many papers. On this topic, here you go:

Paleontologist Buries Another Proposed Cambrian Precursor | Evolution News

Günter Bechly explains why the Precambrian fossil Namacalathus fails as a transitional precursor to the Cambrian explosion.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s a paper highlighting more evidence:

More Cambrian Woes for Evolution | Evolution News

New fossils continue to put pressure on the evolutionary narrative of gradualism.

evolutionnews.org

Here’s another one that is even newer:

Biology Journal Betrays Cause for Darwin Doubt | Evolution News

The strength of a theory can be gauged by how well it stands up to attacks and how well it incorporates new evidence.

evolutionnews.org

And the Cambrian evidence keeps on eroding evolutionists’ hopes:

Jellyfish Originated in the Cambrian Explosion | Evolution News

Remarkably, these animals can be placed within the crown group of the living cnidarian clade Medusozoa, which is not exactly what Darwinists should expect.

evolutionnews.org

You might not like the website, but look up their sources; Evolution News rarely posts anything, without linking supporting data from evolutionist sources.

Don’t call me a “sausage” (whatever that’s s’posed to mean, I doubt it’s flattering). Ad homs, like name-calling (and attacking a person’s knowledge and ethics like @shunyadragon tries), only makes the attacker’s arguments look weak.

And shunyadragon, you once again misrepresented what I said. Referencing Colin Patterson & S. J. Gould, I didn’t say they bemoaned “aspects of evolution.”

I said they bemoaned “the evidence the fossil record provides” in support of it.

Because they did….

“The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
(Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

And that was in 1995! The gap for evolution proponents to explain is even greater now, since the time frame for the Cambrian explosion has been narrowed even more.


“Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks."
Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24.
(Transitionals, anyone?)

There’s no wonder he proposed the controversial “punctuated equilibrium” with Niles Eldredge.

—————————-

Colin Patterson:

"Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.


There are other quotes from CD evolution proponents which TalkOrigins has commented on also, but they rarely present substantial rebuttals.

I hope you check them out!


So long.

Literally every single one of your links are to a website that is an exposed & known pseudo-scientific lying source.

Color me unimpressed. And unsurprised.

 

[shunyadragon]

Literally every single one of your links are to a website that is an exposed & known pseudo-scientific lying source.

Color me unimpressed. And unsurprised.

Color them wearing 'The Emperor's New Clothes.'