no it was not a BOOM.the cambrian exsplosion lasted 70 milion years.it did not last 1day or weak or 1 year or 1000 years but 70 000 000 years. BOOOM idiot
The Cambrian Period is not when the first multicelled animals appered, it is when the many of the major PHYLA appeared. Suddenly is a 70 million year period.
It happened 530 Million years ago, how does that fit into your bibble story?
@gregrutz Exactly....it didn't happen overnight, but in tens of millions of years. A longer period of time than the dinosaurs have now been extinct....and how much has life changed since then?
If evolution is true, then why are there many examples of species that have not mutated over a purported period of hundreds of millions of years? One cannot argue that they didn't undergo adequate amounts of stress to induce mutation, since the relatively untouched islands of galapagos showcase many species who have demonstrated limited mutations within their kind. In short, there are no places on earth that are safe from a constant barrage of the elements. The lack of mutation is puzzling
@ThisIDig Most of the speceise that ever lived on the earth are extinct. Evolution does not say things have to change. 70 Million year is not 'suddenly''
@gregrutz "Most of the speceise that ever lived on the earth are extinct." Absolutely. There are clear records of Mass Extinction which highlight the oft overlooked fact that a global flood is responsible. The evolutionists are slowly (and defiantly) coming to grips with this since only the past few decades.
"Evolution does not say things have to change" Evolution IS change, by definition.
@gregrutz Many geologists and paleontologists beg to differ. Check out John Alroy at UC Santa Barbara, and Kenneth Cummings at ICR. They have written some informative research.
If any creationist is gonna talk about the Cambrian explosion as evidence for a creator, then you first got to admit that the earth is at least a couple of hundred million years old.
Note that almost every animal in the Cambrian can fit in your palm , the largest animal is only 3 feet long .A far cry from God making all sea life in one day .
Johnathen Wells obtained a science degree for the sole purpose of fighting evolution on reverend Moons order .This is why credentials alone dont make you right.Wells is infamous for errors.
Pre- Cambrian animals where leaving trails foot prints or burrows but their bodies where too soft to fossilize .The sudden fossil emergence is an illusion ( been there all along as footprints only etc..)
The short answer is that The Cambrian animals shells became hard enough to finally fossilize .They had been there before but you cant find their body parts easily .
Johnathan Wells was a disciple of reverend Moon ( an antichrist) .Moon paid for Wells education to obtain a science degree for credulity to attack evolution .
Mcwolf71 hears about the Cambrian and makes a quick video echoing creationist slant .Over a year has passed and how much have you learned about the Cambrian and the errors you have presented .
I'm sorry you had to see such an outdated show. I'm gonna post some comments here for those interested in what came before, heheh, anomalocaris, as if that was old!
The cambrian "explosion" is an outdated theory that seems to be the recovery from the end-Ediacaran extinction, which in itself is STILL speculative because it is biased towards a complete fossil record. Life on earth has been shown experimentally to exist in the Hadean eon. This cannot be tested because there is a limit to how long a fossil can be preserved without being crushed by geological processes. Banded Iron, an indicator of biological processes, show up around 3800mya.
The first identifiable fossils (Archaeoscillatorioposis and Siphonophycus from 3496mya, and NOT Primaevifilum) are Cyanobacteria, which is just far enough to observe the transition from prokaryote to Eukaryotes, the first of which might be the 2100 million year old Grypania or something from the Mesoproterozoic, but not old enough to observe how those cells were created (hence the experiments).
). By the Neoproterozoic era, protists and the like are abundant by Precambrian acritarch standards, but fall in the background around 600mya. That is where the first undeniable animal fossils appear. And unlike the Cambrian, they are so early that it is almost impossible to figure where they fit on the phylogenic tree of animals. The most famous of the Ediacarans is, of course, the enigmatic little Spriggina.
There are also extremely primitive arthropods, the small shelley fauna, whatever the hell Tribrachidium is, Kimbrella, Vendia, Dickinsonia, Cloudina, Namacalathus, etc. At the end of the Ediacaran, there is an general turnover where the proarticulates (an almost wastebasket taxon collecting the alternating worm-things) become usurped by many recognizable animals and many more that arent.
In the early Cambrian, animals are still small & slightly comparable to the Ediacarans, right up until the evolution of eyes (at the end of the terreneuvian). What the explosion actually refers to is a period of time well after the first super predators like Anomalocaris have had a chance to evolve into their niche; the amgan age containing the explosion occurs a full 15mya AFTER the trilobites arise, the time between is of course filled with index fossils e.i. not at all sketchy.
Finish the quote:and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens. Quote mining the bible? Is there any depth a creationist won't stoop to decieve the public. Guess not. Got any birds down in that strata? None? Nada? Zip? Guess you're wrong, again.
i imagine, that you hold a faith of some sort, since an overwhelmingly massive majority of anti-evolutionists do, due to the conflict that evolution has with their written religious texts, created several millennia ago before science could explain much of the world.
i am not one such person, but if i was, i would embrace evolution wholeheartedly, because the staggering wealth of supporting evidence is there, and i would say 'what a perfect method my god has created to develop living beings'.
not necessarily, you could just as easily ignore all the evidence of evolution, and not belive in a god. although this is highly unlikely, admittedly, but only because evolution comes into conflict with certain religious writings, tough it shouldn't have to. as i have said, if i were a christian, for example, i would be the first to say, look at this wonderful stsyem god has created tat plays out his plans for life. i just couldn't bury my head in the evidence laden sand and live with myself.
furthermore, iam a member of a theology and philosophy group that meet regularly to discuss all manner of things. one prominent member is an extremely well read christian who knonws more about the historicity of the bible than anyone i know. he has just sent an email to a prominent cambridge christian evolutionary biologist. as a result of reading several replies for the prof, my friend is just reversing his creation beliefs, without affecting his christianity. he now advocates evolution.
a quote from the email: It would take too long to explain, but creationists simply won't accept evolution, and waste their (and my) time nit-picking, taking things out of context and twisting the evidence. Nobody claims we have a perfect record, and of course there are reinterpretations and reassessments, but all the evidence for transitional forms has grown, not shrunk. Also most transitions are geologically fairly rapid, and evolution is very adept at arriving efficiently at stable solutions
First of all, because evolution supposedly takes billions of years to see dramatic change, there is no way to prove it, it will always remain speculation until a billion more years, but the earth wont last this along according to scientist and the bible.
That just means your christian friend lacks understanding and is easily convinced. Well-read doesn't equal well-informed, and knowing the history of the bible and having understanding of it are two different things.
i think you need to practice what you preach. how much truly geological and palaeontological evidence have you actually looked into? it takes a lifetime to research, and so much evidence backs it up, i cannot understand how you can rubbish it. insane. christians will let their beliefs and desire overide logic and reason and evidence. if you were not trying to adhere to the bible, you would undoubtedly take evolution as acceptable. the bible has only just started to be taken literally. nuts.
Another thing...I find it funny that when a lot of evolutionists use the fossil record as evidence for evolutionary change, they IGNORE the Cambrian period. The Cambrian fossils are the most abundant samples we have, so intermediates would, in theory, be the most rampant. Instead, they rely on curious mosaics and subjective similarities. Look in any biology textbook, and you will find there is usually just one line on the Cambrian explosion.
If you believe in evolution, you have to believe that. But at what point do you say that the fossil evidence has too many gaps to be able to explain evolutionary theory? Wouldn't 3 billion years of trillions of missing fossil intermediates be a pretty solid reason?
you have to understand fully the implications of how fossils are created, and also the statistics surrounding them to know that your comment is unreasonable. using your logic, at what point do YOU accept that there is so much fossilised evidence to support evolution, and that in some lines there are no gaps (eg horse ancestry etc). furthermore, evolution can also be supported (ie proved) outside of fossil records through: genetics, biochemistry, historical geography (migration of many species)..
I think that the fossil record must provide a very good OVERALL record of transitional intermediates. It must show consistency throughout different lines of development, not just a few isolated examples that are subjective such as human evolution and horses...the best place one should logically go to find the best sample would be the place with the most abundant record of fossils, scattered across the widest range of time. The Cambrian is, in other words, the best place to look.
By the way, we DO have fossils of single celled organisms dating back to 3 billion or so years before the Cambrian, so we know that soft-bodied fossilization is possible. Just to add more fuel, there is virtually no foundation for the evolution of Cambrian organisms into fishes. All of a sudden, fish appear. That to me is more compelling than a few horse-like creatures.
Man,the atheists start to squirm as their theory is being flushed down the ole commode.Of couse people with common sense already knew it was a piece of poopoo anyway.
This video is misleading (the one you have clips of)
1) There is evidence of complex life forms 100 million years before the Cambrian.
2) His reference to 2 minutes is misleading in the fact that it makes it seem like a quick time... if you want to call 53 million years a short time, well, just go ahead!
3) you must consider the environment, which must have also "rapidly" changed to account for needed adaption and Selective Pressure.
Also, there is another RATIONAL explanation for the seeming "explosion" of complex forms... the new animals had skeletons that were more easily fossilized!
See tinyurl(d)com/2gbnph for an explanation of where wells goes wrong.
Also, watch /watch?v=I9WrMxhqXkY it's in a few parts.
I'm not surprised. No offense, but Wells is a creationists, and so his science is not the best. I'll make a video response to better address these things.
@mcwolf71 There were many multicelled animals in the Pre-Cambrian Period. There were not any shells or easily fossilized parts. There was several Billion years of evolution before the Cambrian Period.
Other things which Wells mentions are misleading - for example there were complicated lifeforms before the Cambrian explosion, things similar to jellyfish, soft bodied and rarely fossilized. I have a book which talks about some examples called "A short history of nearly everything," which is an interesting read.
You must remember, many of these things Wells is talking about are known and understood by evolutionary biologists. These facts don't pose a problem for evolution, they are an impetus for us to figure out how evolution works.
Spoken like a true evolutionary dogmatist. We must accept the "fact" of evolution and decide how the evidence fits it? What happened to letting the evidence speak for itself? The evidence in this case is in my opinion a fatal blow to Darwin's so-called tree of life, and the lack of transitional forms.
No, we accept the fact because of all of the evidence there already is for it. The Cambrian Explosion is not a fatal blow by any means, it is a learning opportunity.
And I'm not a dogmatist. Any sufficient evidence against evolution would be enough to change my mind. But the Cambrian Explosion isn't it.
@1;30 'void in the fossil record'' There is no gap in the fossils. The Cambrian PERIOD is also when shells evolved and fossils became more common.
It is when the first PHYLA [basic life shapes] evolved. There still were no land animals yet.
The event 530 million years ago does prove creation wrong.
gregrutz 1 month ago
No explanation has been found to explain their sudden appearance only refuted theories .
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor The sudden appearance was over 60 million years and life did not 'explode' until after several billion years of evolution.
gregrutz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
no it was not a BOOM.the cambrian exsplosion lasted 70 milion years.it did not last 1day or weak or 1 year or 1000 years but 70 000 000 years. BOOOM idiot
1dekidejo 3 months ago
Comment removed
1dekidejo 3 months ago
Starting at 1:52 they show what lived 530 million years ago, you won't see anything but small weird marine animals. Look. Think.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz Yes but they`re the Cambrian fossils. Unless that`s what your saying?
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
The Cambrian Period is not when the first multicelled animals appered, it is when the many of the major PHYLA appeared. Suddenly is a 70 million year period.
It happened 530 Million years ago, how does that fit into your bibble story?
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz Exactly....it didn't happen overnight, but in tens of millions of years. A longer period of time than the dinosaurs have now been extinct....and how much has life changed since then?
gvman3670 5 months ago
If evolution is true, then why are there many examples of species that have not mutated over a purported period of hundreds of millions of years? One cannot argue that they didn't undergo adequate amounts of stress to induce mutation, since the relatively untouched islands of galapagos showcase many species who have demonstrated limited mutations within their kind. In short, there are no places on earth that are safe from a constant barrage of the elements. The lack of mutation is puzzling
ThisIDig 1 year ago
@ThisIDig Most of the speceise that ever lived on the earth are extinct. Evolution does not say things have to change. 70 Million year is not 'suddenly''
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz "Most of the speceise that ever lived on the earth are extinct." Absolutely. There are clear records of Mass Extinction which highlight the oft overlooked fact that a global flood is responsible. The evolutionists are slowly (and defiantly) coming to grips with this since only the past few decades.
"Evolution does not say things have to change" Evolution IS change, by definition.
ThisIDig 8 months ago
@ThisIDig There were 6 great mass extinctions, were there 6 floods?
I guess by your definition not everything is evolving, soooo? Most things are.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz Many geologists and paleontologists beg to differ. Check out John Alroy at UC Santa Barbara, and Kenneth Cummings at ICR. They have written some informative research.
ThisIDig 8 months ago
@ThisIDig ICR ?!!? Are you kidding? You can't ''research'' the supernatural.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@ThisIDig Now you are trying to prove evolution does happen enough so it is wrong. LOL
gregrutz 8 months ago
You reaserched this? There are multicelleular animals in the precambrian. So youre wrong, as are the people who made these videos.
phookadude 1 year ago
If any creationist is gonna talk about the Cambrian explosion as evidence for a creator, then you first got to admit that the earth is at least a couple of hundred million years old.
DavySigfusson 1 year ago 2
Note that almost every animal in the Cambrian can fit in your palm , the largest animal is only 3 feet long .A far cry from God making all sea life in one day .
flyingscience 3 years ago
Johnathen Wells obtained a science degree for the sole purpose of fighting evolution on reverend Moons order .This is why credentials alone dont make you right.Wells is infamous for errors.
flyingscience 3 years ago
Pre- Cambrian animals where leaving trails foot prints or burrows but their bodies where too soft to fossilize .The sudden fossil emergence is an illusion ( been there all along as footprints only etc..)
flyingscience 3 years ago
The short answer is that The Cambrian animals shells became hard enough to finally fossilize .They had been there before but you cant find their body parts easily .
flyingscience 3 years ago
Johnathan Wells was a disciple of reverend Moon ( an antichrist) .Moon paid for Wells education to obtain a science degree for credulity to attack evolution .
flyingscience 3 years ago
Mcwolf71 hears about the Cambrian and makes a quick video echoing creationist slant .Over a year has passed and how much have you learned about the Cambrian and the errors you have presented .
flyingscience 3 years ago
I'm sorry you had to see such an outdated show. I'm gonna post some comments here for those interested in what came before, heheh, anomalocaris, as if that was old!
egdeltur666 3 years ago
The cambrian "explosion" is an outdated theory that seems to be the recovery from the end-Ediacaran extinction, which in itself is STILL speculative because it is biased towards a complete fossil record. Life on earth has been shown experimentally to exist in the Hadean eon. This cannot be tested because there is a limit to how long a fossil can be preserved without being crushed by geological processes. Banded Iron, an indicator of biological processes, show up around 3800mya.
egdeltur666 3 years ago
The first identifiable fossils (Archaeoscillatorioposis and Siphonophycus from 3496mya, and NOT Primaevifilum) are Cyanobacteria, which is just far enough to observe the transition from prokaryote to Eukaryotes, the first of which might be the 2100 million year old Grypania or something from the Mesoproterozoic, but not old enough to observe how those cells were created (hence the experiments).
egdeltur666 3 years ago
). By the Neoproterozoic era, protists and the like are abundant by Precambrian acritarch standards, but fall in the background around 600mya. That is where the first undeniable animal fossils appear. And unlike the Cambrian, they are so early that it is almost impossible to figure where they fit on the phylogenic tree of animals. The most famous of the Ediacarans is, of course, the enigmatic little Spriggina.
egdeltur666 3 years ago
There are also extremely primitive arthropods, the small shelley fauna, whatever the hell Tribrachidium is, Kimbrella, Vendia, Dickinsonia, Cloudina, Namacalathus, etc. At the end of the Ediacaran, there is an general turnover where the proarticulates (an almost wastebasket taxon collecting the alternating worm-things) become usurped by many recognizable animals and many more that arent.
egdeltur666 3 years ago
In the early Cambrian, animals are still small & slightly comparable to the Ediacarans, right up until the evolution of eyes (at the end of the terreneuvian). What the explosion actually refers to is a period of time well after the first super predators like Anomalocaris have had a chance to evolve into their niche; the amgan age containing the explosion occurs a full 15mya AFTER the trilobites arise, the time between is of course filled with index fossils e.i. not at all sketchy.
egdeltur666 3 years ago
God created the sea creatures first. The animal fossils in the cambrian explosion geological record are all aquatic.
Gen 1:20 - "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures"
mathewjohn5174 3 years ago
Finish the quote:and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens. Quote mining the bible? Is there any depth a creationist won't stoop to decieve the public. Guess not. Got any birds down in that strata? None? Nada? Zip? Guess you're wrong, again.
magick205 3 years ago
but the sequence is still correct, birds came after the sea creatures.... :)
asymmetrichwz 3 years ago
you know, the picture you show at 3:17 starts quite a bit of time after the cambrian explosion.
jonthebaptist666 3 years ago
i imagine, that you hold a faith of some sort, since an overwhelmingly massive majority of anti-evolutionists do, due to the conflict that evolution has with their written religious texts, created several millennia ago before science could explain much of the world.
i am not one such person, but if i was, i would embrace evolution wholeheartedly, because the staggering wealth of supporting evidence is there, and i would say 'what a perfect method my god has created to develop living beings'.
johnnyp76 3 years ago
If one is anti-evolutionist, wouldn't they default to believing in a diety?
Can't have it both ways.
mcwolf71 3 years ago
not necessarily, you could just as easily ignore all the evidence of evolution, and not belive in a god. although this is highly unlikely, admittedly, but only because evolution comes into conflict with certain religious writings, tough it shouldn't have to. as i have said, if i were a christian, for example, i would be the first to say, look at this wonderful stsyem god has created tat plays out his plans for life. i just couldn't bury my head in the evidence laden sand and live with myself.
johnnyp76 3 years ago
furthermore, iam a member of a theology and philosophy group that meet regularly to discuss all manner of things. one prominent member is an extremely well read christian who knonws more about the historicity of the bible than anyone i know. he has just sent an email to a prominent cambridge christian evolutionary biologist. as a result of reading several replies for the prof, my friend is just reversing his creation beliefs, without affecting his christianity. he now advocates evolution.
johnnyp76 3 years ago
a quote from the email: It would take too long to explain, but creationists simply won't accept evolution, and waste their (and my) time nit-picking, taking things out of context and twisting the evidence. Nobody claims we have a perfect record, and of course there are reinterpretations and reassessments, but all the evidence for transitional forms has grown, not shrunk. Also most transitions are geologically fairly rapid, and evolution is very adept at arriving efficiently at stable solutions
johnnyp76 3 years ago
First of all, because evolution supposedly takes billions of years to see dramatic change, there is no way to prove it, it will always remain speculation until a billion more years, but the earth wont last this along according to scientist and the bible.
soulsearch1234 3 years ago
That just means your christian friend lacks understanding and is easily convinced. Well-read doesn't equal well-informed, and knowing the history of the bible and having understanding of it are two different things.
soulsearch1234 3 years ago
You people slay me with your lack of critical thinking, analyze the nature of evidence as it relates to science and ideas of reality
soulsearch1234 3 years ago
i think you need to practice what you preach. how much truly geological and palaeontological evidence have you actually looked into? it takes a lifetime to research, and so much evidence backs it up, i cannot understand how you can rubbish it. insane. christians will let their beliefs and desire overide logic and reason and evidence. if you were not trying to adhere to the bible, you would undoubtedly take evolution as acceptable. the bible has only just started to be taken literally. nuts.
johnnyp76 3 years ago
@mcwolf71
"If one is anti-evolutionist, wouldn't they default to believing in a diety?
Can't have it both ways."
Raelians can, apparently...
Cyrathil 1 year ago
Another thing...I find it funny that when a lot of evolutionists use the fossil record as evidence for evolutionary change, they IGNORE the Cambrian period. The Cambrian fossils are the most abundant samples we have, so intermediates would, in theory, be the most rampant. Instead, they rely on curious mosaics and subjective similarities. Look in any biology textbook, and you will find there is usually just one line on the Cambrian explosion.
wiredaces80 4 years ago
all fossils are intermsediaries.
johnnyp76 3 years ago
If you believe in evolution, you have to believe that. But at what point do you say that the fossil evidence has too many gaps to be able to explain evolutionary theory? Wouldn't 3 billion years of trillions of missing fossil intermediates be a pretty solid reason?
wiredaces80 3 years ago
you have to understand fully the implications of how fossils are created, and also the statistics surrounding them to know that your comment is unreasonable. using your logic, at what point do YOU accept that there is so much fossilised evidence to support evolution, and that in some lines there are no gaps (eg horse ancestry etc). furthermore, evolution can also be supported (ie proved) outside of fossil records through: genetics, biochemistry, historical geography (migration of many species)..
johnnyp76 3 years ago
I think that the fossil record must provide a very good OVERALL record of transitional intermediates. It must show consistency throughout different lines of development, not just a few isolated examples that are subjective such as human evolution and horses...the best place one should logically go to find the best sample would be the place with the most abundant record of fossils, scattered across the widest range of time. The Cambrian is, in other words, the best place to look.
wiredaces80 3 years ago
By the way, we DO have fossils of single celled organisms dating back to 3 billion or so years before the Cambrian, so we know that soft-bodied fossilization is possible. Just to add more fuel, there is virtually no foundation for the evolution of Cambrian organisms into fishes. All of a sudden, fish appear. That to me is more compelling than a few horse-like creatures.
wiredaces80 3 years ago
Man,the atheists start to squirm as their theory is being flushed down the ole commode.Of couse people with common sense already knew it was a piece of poopoo anyway.
CBALLEN 4 years ago
This video is misleading (the one you have clips of)
1) There is evidence of complex life forms 100 million years before the Cambrian.
2) His reference to 2 minutes is misleading in the fact that it makes it seem like a quick time... if you want to call 53 million years a short time, well, just go ahead!
3) you must consider the environment, which must have also "rapidly" changed to account for needed adaption and Selective Pressure.
lennyhipp 4 years ago
Also, there is another RATIONAL explanation for the seeming "explosion" of complex forms... the new animals had skeletons that were more easily fossilized!
See tinyurl(d)com/2gbnph for an explanation of where wells goes wrong.
Also, watch /watch?v=I9WrMxhqXkY it's in a few parts.
More reading: tinyurl(d)com/3eyoos
lennyhipp 4 years ago
Hmm, that is not what was conveyed by him.
It was conveyed all single cell organisms until the cambrian explosion.
mcwolf71 4 years ago
I'm not surprised. No offense, but Wells is a creationists, and so his science is not the best. I'll make a video response to better address these things.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
@mcwolf71 There were many multicelled animals in the Pre-Cambrian Period. There were not any shells or easily fossilized parts. There was several Billion years of evolution before the Cambrian Period.
gregrutz 8 months ago
Other things which Wells mentions are misleading - for example there were complicated lifeforms before the Cambrian explosion, things similar to jellyfish, soft bodied and rarely fossilized. I have a book which talks about some examples called "A short history of nearly everything," which is an interesting read.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
You must remember, many of these things Wells is talking about are known and understood by evolutionary biologists. These facts don't pose a problem for evolution, they are an impetus for us to figure out how evolution works.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Spoken like a true evolutionary dogmatist. We must accept the "fact" of evolution and decide how the evidence fits it? What happened to letting the evidence speak for itself? The evidence in this case is in my opinion a fatal blow to Darwin's so-called tree of life, and the lack of transitional forms.
wiredaces80 4 years ago
No, we accept the fact because of all of the evidence there already is for it. The Cambrian Explosion is not a fatal blow by any means, it is a learning opportunity.
And I'm not a dogmatist. Any sufficient evidence against evolution would be enough to change my mind. But the Cambrian Explosion isn't it.
JDRedstone 4 years ago 2