Cambrian

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Still not sure what you mean by 'supprt' but I'm struggling to come up with a sensible meaning that fits with what he said.


[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]

Darwin wrote:

"the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that: "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."

He pondered the sudden appearance of many groups (i.e., Phyla) in the oldest known fossiliferous strata:

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer. (note: Silurian was then what Cambrian is now)"

And worried about the implications for the validity of his theories:

". . . . . these difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:- First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?


[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If the Cambrian anaomoly is resolved then is that the support you're hoping for?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just wondering why all the open minds on this forum can't admit an obvious fact: The Cambrian explosion can't be explained from the fossil record.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe but seemed like one of the line of enquiries above explains the apparant anomoly by the discovery of pre-cambrian fossils that had previously been thought part of the Cambrian explosions.

Surely if that's the case then the fossil record could resolve the Cambrian anomoly.

but I'm perfectly open to the possibility that the fossil record will never explain it all (whether or not Darwinism is correct).

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but I'm perfectly open to the possibility that the fossil record will never explain it all (whether or not Darwinism is correct).


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, all I wanted.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Still not sure what you mean by 'supprt' but I'm struggling to come up with a sensible meaning that fits with what he said.


[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]

Darwin wrote:

"the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that: "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."

He pondered the sudden appearance of many groups (i.e., Phyla) in the oldest known fossiliferous strata:

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer. (note: Silurian was then what Cambrian is now)"

And worried about the implications for the validity of his theories:

". . . . . these difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:- First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
nope still too dense to see what you mean. Maybe you could give a simple example of what it means for evidence to support a theory in a way that fossils don't support evolution.

or do you just mean that there's some anomalies?

chez

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but I'm perfectly open to the possibility that the fossil record will never explain it all (whether or not Darwinism is correct).


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, all I wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]
I second. Now a question for you: What do you think of the possibility that the all life on earth (including humans) evolved by natural means with no intervention from God?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe you could give a simple example of what it means for evidence to support a theory in a way that fossils don't support evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

Darwin said:

the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system

I guess if the evidence supported the theory he would say

the presence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If the Cambrian anaomoly is resolved then is that the support you're hoping for?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just wondering why all the open minds on this forum can't admit an obvious fact: The Cambrian explosion can't be explained from the fossil record.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there are no paleontologist phd's on here and those that are interested scored well on Dunning Kruger. Mostly, there's not much to explain on that topic anymore.

You are aware that more fossils have been found since Darwins day and there have been discoveries such as Hox genes ( and genetics in general).

The only meaningful way too approach your concern over Darwin himself ( I never reference him, anymore than I ask columbus for navigation advice) would be to wonder whimsically where he would be today with the 150 years of science added to his initial observations and deductions.

There are far more interesting corners of evolution and paleontology than the contribution that the cambrian brings.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What do you think of the possibility that the all life on earth (including humans) evolved by natural means with no intervention from God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would distinguish between design and intervention - the first is 0% the second is >0%. It's possible God's design included the ability for the universe to evolve as we see it without further intervention. That isn't my position, but I don't think it's impossible or even un-Scriptural, given Augustine's view of the Genesis days. That also doesn't mean God never intervenes, as in miracles, the Incarnation, etc.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What was mine?

[/ QUOTE ]

That the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even warm. No inkling.

[ QUOTE ]
my claim was that Darwin admitted the fossil record doesn't support his theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he acknowledged that the CAMBRIAN fossils do not necessarily support his theory. But that means very little, because he, and others, find the mass of other evidence highly persuasive. This is an example of the flawed thinking I described in my early post -- seizing on one small bit of counter evidence, without BALANCING IT against all the other.

And recent examinations of the Burgess Shale continue to support natural explanations. And you claim a lot more than that Darwin questioned his own theory -- you assume it is good evidence that evolution is false. It is not.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You are aware that more fossils have been found since Darwins day


[/ QUOTE ]

In the Cambrian or before? To any significant extent?

[ QUOTE ]

wonder whimsically where he would be today with the 150 years of science added to his initial observations and deductions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would his position on the Cambrian be any different? Which is my basic question - was he wrong?