The change from a diploblasitc animal body plan to a triploblastic body form is based on a very few genes. Once you have a triploblastic body (one with a true coelom) you can create a WHOLE lot of different body forms, not just radial cnidarians or ctenophores.
The cambrian radiation was most likely due to this subtle, yet significant change in animal body form that required very few genetic mutations..
How do you explain the oxygen catastrophe and the switch to haploid? What about the 3.8 billion years BEFORE the cambrian explosion? Why did life not evolve during that period, huh? Why did it slowed down after cambrian?
With your Darwin icon you are no better than the inquisition. I know it sucks, but sometimes you have to abandon dogma for truth. No, I am not a creationist. I am an interventionist.
P.S. I understand conditions were poor during Catarchean and Archean
@OPworldwideIA 'What about the 3.8 billion years BEFORE the cambrian explosion?'
Learn a little bit about early earth conditions and you'll find out exactly why the fuck that didn't happen... It wasn't exactly a 'paradise' for life -_-
'Why did it slowed down after cambrian?'
I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard that. What textbook did you get this little gem from? I'm asking since I haven't seen this is any textbook, ever.
So, your saying, life went from microbes to multi-cellular life in 80 million years? Where are the "life forms" in between. Science should stay out of philosophical and religious spheres. When your inquiring mind can come up with something other than a guess maybe people will start listening seriously to what you have to say. You weren't there "dude" so quit acting like what you say is "true". Because it isn't.
What the fuck are you expecting? A microbe with half a cell stuck to it? Here's a quick lesson. Microbe is one cell. Multi-cellular is more then one cell... There is no fucking in between...
'Science should stay out of philosophical and religious spheres'
It was never in either of those fields. Science is an investigation of the world around us and answers questions. Religion just didn't like the questions being answered.
@bheadh Reality check time. Science doesn't give two shits what religion thinks and never did outside of idiots like you constantly interfering with the learning process of science. It's not religious or philosophical, it's based on evidence and makes no conclusions without evidence (unlike you and your religion). It might be able to answer questions that fuck with your world a bit, but (and here's the main point) your issues with it's answers are not it's concern.
@bheadh Just shut up and let it continue to do it's job of creating vaccines to fight shit like, I dunno, SMALL POX, and generally make all our collective lives better through other advancements like a network of water pipes that leads to your fucking house...
@lordlandraid Wow, all that to make a "response"? After Dodging all the anger and insults your point was,.... What? That you can get angry and swear? (says a lot about you) "What was I expecting?" First of all, I was expecting a mature response(HA HA HA HA) Second, Where are all the "animals" between the pre-cambrian and the cambrian? ( IN between the insults and cursing you never gave any examples...except for your "quick lesson")
@bheadh You honestly expect me to be civil to someone who is acting like an arrogant ass? Not acting like that is part of being civil, you act civil and I'll act civil. Until then, you can kiss my ass. There are no animals in between the cambrian and pre-cambrian. Multi-cellular organisms appeared DURING the cambrian explosion, I.E. only single celled organisms. I implore you, learn something about the fucking topic that doesn't come off the christian rumor mill before you discuss it.
@lordlandraid So yo're telling me that only single celled animals and then a few multi-celled ones lived in the pre-cambrian and then, all the sudden a vast array (or should I say half-vast) of large multi-cellular just appeared some Tuesday afternoon 500,000,000 years ago? I see you insult everyone you talk to here. You must be really popular in person. God bless.
@bheadh No you twit. Multi-celled organisms didn't all appear 'at one time.' It occurred within a 20-40 million year time period (the Cambrian Explosion). It wasn't 'in an instant,' but rather over a very long course of time. I insult you because you act like an all-knowing twit when your 'knowledge' comes from an extreme lack of understanding of the opposing viewpoints. Your current criticisms have been easily rectified. If you have any others, please do give them
@lordlandraid Your anger and insults say alot about you. You haven't "rectified" anything. You give no examples. You, actually make no room for other veiwpoints that you think attack your scientific agenda....as stated before...without examples. Like I said in my first statement, science should stay out of philosophical and religious questions it can't answer.
@bheadh It did answer them... it's based on evidence, fossils, multiple dating methods, I'm telling you exactly what has been said and what the information regarding this is. If you want me to give you specific instances and dating, then here's an idea, look it up yourself. You obviously have no idea or basic understanding as to what is stated by science. It's not philosophy because everything in science is based on evidence, I.E. no room for philosophizing and no reason for it.
@bheadh If you are ever going to argue against anything, the first step is to learn about the thing your arguing against. You obviously know nothing about anything that is said about the Cambrian Explosion and you probably don't even care since you have a preferred worldview you'd rather believe in, regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Google Cambrian Explosion and read a few peer reviewed papers. Learn something about it before you spout your biased opinion.
@bheadh At least wiki it for fucks sake. The wiki article gives you information about dating methods and actually gives some examples of fossils from that time period. Basic research is required to argue against anything and you haven't even done that. You cannot argue against you don't have a basic understanding of and you don't even have that. Go read the wiki entry, look at the pictures, read about the dating methods, read about the evidence, then attempt to spout whatever you want... -_-
@lordlandraid So yo're telling me that only single celled animals and then a few multi-celled ones lived in the pre-cambrian and then, all the sudden a vast array (or should I say half-vast) of large multi-cellular just appeared some Tuesday afternoon 500,000,000 years ago? I'm the one that needs to "learn something"...RIGHT! I see you insult everyone you talk to here. You must be really popular in person. God bless.
look genius.. the keyword that disqualifies your arguement in any way is this..
you said there is alot of time for generations to have mutations passed on .. what the hell does that mean man.. dont u know that mutation is not evolution jr. mutation is not a good thing.. infact mutation = death. mutation does not result in evolution.
have u even taking biology class? thats basic stuff
@eggman1600 Firstly that's not a "key word", because a key word is one word. That's a paragraph you posted.
And mutations don't cause death, what made you think that? You probably either have a warped idea of what a mutation is, or you're thinking of a specific kind of mutations. Mutations can be fatal, they also can be helpful. The vast majority are neutral. Seriously, what makes you think "mutation = death"?
Btw, mutation + natural selection = evolution, so yeah, it does result in evolution.
This video is so wrong I don't even know where to start. He doesn't even know what the term Cambrian explosion means. He has confused the term Cambrian explosion with the Cambrian record. If it wasn't so late in the evening I would point out what a load this is. Unbelievable.
@gkeeper86 The initial radiation event (biologies big bang) occurs at between 3 to 10 million years. Some Chinese observers say even shorter.
The Cambrian record last 60 to 80 million years. The distinction was not made in video. This is deceptive to young minds. This has nothing to do with creationist or evolutionist. This has to do with the observable evidence. Any one who hand waives this great mystery away based on politics or their own personel world view is a fool.
@benthemiester can you explain this point futher, i am interested. what is the initial radiation event? i understand the big bang's background radiation because i have a bsc physics but i only got an E in a level biology :)
@wardydave The Cambrian radiation event deals with the sudden & rapid appearance of billions & billions of complex phyla appearing globally & in orders of magnitude with out any known ancestry. Although there are many competing propositions, there still tentative. This happened around 530MY ago & within 3- 10 million years, depending on who you ask. It is followed by around 70 MY rapid diversification & then mass extinction, but some of these creatures still exist today. Google Darwins Enigma.
@benthemiester I took it you were refering me to the book? I read the blurb and it immediately rang alarm bells. It states that there is no legitimate fossil evidence showing one species evloving into another. I would argue that this is because 'evolution' happens at the mixing of DNA with random mutations. There could never be any fossil evidence for this. Only evidence of the parents, and then the child (if the mutation made it survive).
@wardydave evolution' happens at the mixing of DNA with random mutations"
I know what mutations are. There errors in the transcription process, that is to say mistakes, & many cause sickness death & disease. Many others are neutral. If there are beneficial mutations, they're very rare, but they all come at a cost to other parts of the genome. Nothing in nature comes with out a cost. I have never heard the term mixing DNA. What does this have to do with the fossil record? Mutations survived???
@benthemiester I was refering to the claim by the book, and that you couldn't have fossil evidence of evolution because evolution (or at least my understanding of it) is that 'transcription process'. One or two things, genetic mutations at meiosis occur frequently, also they do not all come at a cost, genetic mutations increase genetic diversity and therefore have an important part to play. the mutations that are benificial go on to help them survive through natural selection.
There are less than a hundred PHYLA. The Kingdom Animalia contains approximately forty phyla. Most of the Phyla appeared in the Cambrian Period, not all the different animals and plants. There were only small marine creatures in the Cambrian, no land animals.
Bro, you speaking as if you were there!.. If I didn't no any better, I'd say you were there! O.o ..... were you?... Or did they came with dates attacked to them?
The problem with your apologetic is that their is NO record in the Cambrian Of the evolution you suggest, found. The fully developed phyla just suddenly appears. Many of which are still (bottom feeders) on earth today! Also the Cambrian is not necessarily the beginning of all life. By being suddenly buried. It is just a snap shot of the ocean bottom, frozen in time. Accurate aging of ancient rocks is very dubious. The Cambrian is probably the same age as the Triassic-Jurassic.
Let go of this untenable position friend. You're wasting your intellect in trying to prove an utterly stupid "theory". Try creationism instead, it makes sense, and keeps things in perspective. Go bless you!
Another ignoramus yet again exposing his meager education on a public forum. Hey wise guy, arent any of those organisms with populations that bred daily still alive today?
Before you posted this crap did it occur to you that scientists have been studying these fast breeding organisms for the last 60 or so years and none has ever observed a single one of them evolve into a new kind!!! NOT ONE. THAT ALONE SHOULD TELL THAT YOUR WHOLE PREMISE IS BOGUS MADE UP NONSENSE!!!
i thunk jebus droped a cration bomb, its ovuius , seei understrand teh science , becus im i a undrstoond cration scnonce, no yu evaltonurysdarwinist cant nit even come mclose to sayon im rong , becuse JEBUS told us in teh ?BILBLE
1) we know that 542 million years ago there was nothing bigger than the size of a pea (living) and that 470 million years ago, we had most species of animal and plant here today, but we dont know whether this process took 50-70 million years or less than 1 million years!
2) 60 million years compared to the life of the universe is less than two seconds on a 24 hour clock!
"Science" is so hilarious. Apparently in the 19 months this video was made, the age of the Earth went from 3.85 (as stated in the video) to now 4.6 billion years old. So science hypocritically changes their stance on the age of the earth being what.. 750 million years in less than 2 years of "new discovery"?
And we trust our answers to our most important questions to this so-called "science"? Our science is weak compared to that which genetically engineered us and the rest of life on earth.
The hilarious thing is that in the video I state the beginning of life is dated to 3.85 billion years ago (bya) and you mistake that for being the age of the earth. I never stated how old the earth was. Get a clue. I guess that makes the rest of your comment mute.
@jebus6kryst Oh sorry man I am so used to science changing their dates so often, honest mistake. But I do appreciate the part where you state that the CE is the result of new niches to be filled. I mean the sky is a pretty cool niche so why can't I evolve wings? There are many ecological niches.. if humans are so evolved, why can we only survive in such few niches? We evolve into genetic engineering, moon-landing, nuclear bombing species that can't survive in simple forest like a monkey can?
The sky is not a niche. You learning to fly would increase your fitness how exactly?
This comes from a basic misunderstanding of how evolution works. It is not a thinking force that has an end goal. Natural selection only selects for creatures in given niches based on what they have inherited from their parents. Just because you think something is cool does not mean you have the genes for it.
This is a good question. The answer is that humans have found a niche that has never been exploited before. This niche is the tool-using niche. Now, there are many other animals that have been observed using tools, but humans are the only ones that have created a tool for just about every task they encounter.
Because of this, humans as a species have the largest range of any animal on earth. We are found on every continent except Antarctica before the invention of modern technology. I can also see that you are quite ignorant about the people of this world. Many hunter/gatherer groups are still surviving quite well in forests.
@jebus6kryst In order to live in those forests humans had to construct coats and fire. No other species on Earth needs to do that. Those tribes you speak of only inhabit the easy forests, not the dense areas. Most ecological niches are suicide for humans unless we construct coats and fire. We have to use our genetically engineered intelligence just to survive in areas other species do naturally. Continent does not equal niche.
Which forests are you talking about? I thought you said the same forests that monkeys live in. Those are tropical to temperate forests. One would not need a coat for that. In addition, in those environments fires are used for cooking, not heating.
Easy parts? What part of the !Kung or Hadza environment is easy? The reason they are still hunter/gatherers in their environment is that the land is so harsh.
No shit they would be suicide if humans did not use tools, which was the point I was making. Did you even read my whole comment?
Genetically engineered? What evidence do you have for that claim.
Agreed, continents does not equal niche. However, on continents, niches are found and humans have been found in just about every niche on six of the seven continents.
@jebus6kryst Just about every niche? Yeah so many humans lived in tundra, swamps, deserts, etc! Especially before all the technology that suddenly appeared in a timespan too limited for any evolutionary process to claim. The differences between primates and humans are too staggaring to have occured naturally. The Human larynx is a complete redesign, not some evolved 'need for speech'. Humans are nothing remotely like the so-called 'pre-human' hominids in either intelligence or physical design.
Yes, humans did live in tundra, swamps and deserts long before the advent of agriculture.
The agriculture revolution started around 12 thousand years ago (Ka). How is that not enough time?
How are the differences between humans and primates so staggering when humans still belong to the order Primates? In addition, humans have been classified in that order since Linnaean first created it. Nevertheless, do tell, what are the staggering differences?
Of course, the larynx is redesigned for speech. Natural selection acted upon it. Do you not know how evolution works?
If you really believe that humans are nothing like fossil hominins, then you really need to look up Turkana Boy (KNM-WT 15000), which was post-cranially almost identical to modern humans. You can also look up the fossils found in Atapuerca.
The Cambrian Explosion is extremely intriguing..but i absolutely detest people trying to explain this phenomena by their own deities without using any scientific methods and/or physical evidence..
i love science..in the near future the cambrian explosion could be explained without any dogmas or faith
There 's quite a bit of speculation in this. First the "eye" . The complex eye was said to have developed WITHIN the Explosion and not before. Saying that the eye itself caused the acceleration is like saying that Buddhism caused the explosion of religions in the Axial age. Also, the Creationist videos never said that Cambrian caused all life. The truth is that no one has any answers about The Explosion. Both Darwinist and Creationist rely on assumptions and speculation on this event.
The creationists videos? Therefore, you have seen all the creationists videos about his to make such an absolute statement. I have seen plenty that claim such foolishness as all life started in the Cambrian.
Sorry, if I made it seems like the eye was the only reason for the Cambrian Explosion (CE), this video was simply addressing the fact that creationists claim that paleontologists try to cover up the CE. I was giving one explanation for the proliferation of life during the Cambrian.
What assumptions. As I stated before, there is a mountain of evidence to support the theory of evolution. Simply because you point at one gap does not disprove anything. Address cladistics, ERV, and atavisms if you wish to address a problem with evolution and explain how all those work without evolution. All those support Darwins tree along with the fossil record.
Nothing happened to Darwins tree. Cladistics, ERV, and atavisms all point to a tree of life. Just because you point to one gap in the fossil record does not prove anything.
My only criticism I have is that your image of a jawless fish (2:34) is a fish from the Silurian period (tens of million of years after the Cambrian). The most advanced fish of the cambrian was haikouithys
Good explanation and think you for it! I was having a similar experience here on youtube looking for cambrian explosion info, and could only find abunch of creationist-slanted videos refuting darwinism, when all the while I knew what you said was the explaination. Kudos to you!
The change from a diploblasitc animal body plan to a triploblastic body form is based on a very few genes. Once you have a triploblastic body (one with a true coelom) you can create a WHOLE lot of different body forms, not just radial cnidarians or ctenophores.
The cambrian radiation was most likely due to this subtle, yet significant change in animal body form that required very few genetic mutations..
mafarmerga 2 weeks ago
how come all the known evidence that dont support evolution suddenly become "misnomers"?
peyupsgurl 3 weeks ago
Hey, Einstein!
How do you explain the oxygen catastrophe and the switch to haploid? What about the 3.8 billion years BEFORE the cambrian explosion? Why did life not evolve during that period, huh? Why did it slowed down after cambrian?
With your Darwin icon you are no better than the inquisition. I know it sucks, but sometimes you have to abandon dogma for truth. No, I am not a creationist. I am an interventionist.
P.S. I understand conditions were poor during Catarchean and Archean
OPworldwideIA 9 months ago
@OPworldwideIA 'What about the 3.8 billion years BEFORE the cambrian explosion?'
Learn a little bit about early earth conditions and you'll find out exactly why the fuck that didn't happen... It wasn't exactly a 'paradise' for life -_-
'Why did it slowed down after cambrian?'
I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard that. What textbook did you get this little gem from? I'm asking since I haven't seen this is any textbook, ever.
Short answer: it hasn't.
Long answer: you're an idiot.
lordlandraid 9 months ago
So, your saying, life went from microbes to multi-cellular life in 80 million years? Where are the "life forms" in between. Science should stay out of philosophical and religious spheres. When your inquiring mind can come up with something other than a guess maybe people will start listening seriously to what you have to say. You weren't there "dude" so quit acting like what you say is "true". Because it isn't.
bheadh 9 months ago
@bheadh 'Where are the "life forms" in between'
What the fuck are you expecting? A microbe with half a cell stuck to it? Here's a quick lesson. Microbe is one cell. Multi-cellular is more then one cell... There is no fucking in between...
'Science should stay out of philosophical and religious spheres'
It was never in either of those fields. Science is an investigation of the world around us and answers questions. Religion just didn't like the questions being answered.
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@bheadh Reality check time. Science doesn't give two shits what religion thinks and never did outside of idiots like you constantly interfering with the learning process of science. It's not religious or philosophical, it's based on evidence and makes no conclusions without evidence (unlike you and your religion). It might be able to answer questions that fuck with your world a bit, but (and here's the main point) your issues with it's answers are not it's concern.
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@bheadh Just shut up and let it continue to do it's job of creating vaccines to fight shit like, I dunno, SMALL POX, and generally make all our collective lives better through other advancements like a network of water pipes that leads to your fucking house...
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@lordlandraid Wow, all that to make a "response"? After Dodging all the anger and insults your point was,.... What? That you can get angry and swear? (says a lot about you) "What was I expecting?" First of all, I was expecting a mature response(HA HA HA HA) Second, Where are all the "animals" between the pre-cambrian and the cambrian? ( IN between the insults and cursing you never gave any examples...except for your "quick lesson")
bheadh 9 months ago
@bheadh You honestly expect me to be civil to someone who is acting like an arrogant ass? Not acting like that is part of being civil, you act civil and I'll act civil. Until then, you can kiss my ass. There are no animals in between the cambrian and pre-cambrian. Multi-cellular organisms appeared DURING the cambrian explosion, I.E. only single celled organisms. I implore you, learn something about the fucking topic that doesn't come off the christian rumor mill before you discuss it.
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@lordlandraid Small correction: I.E. only single celled organisms before the cambrian explosion.
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@lordlandraid So yo're telling me that only single celled animals and then a few multi-celled ones lived in the pre-cambrian and then, all the sudden a vast array (or should I say half-vast) of large multi-cellular just appeared some Tuesday afternoon 500,000,000 years ago? I see you insult everyone you talk to here. You must be really popular in person. God bless.
bheadh 9 months ago
@bheadh No you twit. Multi-celled organisms didn't all appear 'at one time.' It occurred within a 20-40 million year time period (the Cambrian Explosion). It wasn't 'in an instant,' but rather over a very long course of time. I insult you because you act like an all-knowing twit when your 'knowledge' comes from an extreme lack of understanding of the opposing viewpoints. Your current criticisms have been easily rectified. If you have any others, please do give them
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@lordlandraid Your anger and insults say alot about you. You haven't "rectified" anything. You give no examples. You, actually make no room for other veiwpoints that you think attack your scientific agenda....as stated before...without examples. Like I said in my first statement, science should stay out of philosophical and religious questions it can't answer.
bheadh 9 months ago
@bheadh It did answer them... it's based on evidence, fossils, multiple dating methods, I'm telling you exactly what has been said and what the information regarding this is. If you want me to give you specific instances and dating, then here's an idea, look it up yourself. You obviously have no idea or basic understanding as to what is stated by science. It's not philosophy because everything in science is based on evidence, I.E. no room for philosophizing and no reason for it.
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@bheadh If you are ever going to argue against anything, the first step is to learn about the thing your arguing against. You obviously know nothing about anything that is said about the Cambrian Explosion and you probably don't even care since you have a preferred worldview you'd rather believe in, regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Google Cambrian Explosion and read a few peer reviewed papers. Learn something about it before you spout your biased opinion.
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@bheadh At least wiki it for fucks sake. The wiki article gives you information about dating methods and actually gives some examples of fossils from that time period. Basic research is required to argue against anything and you haven't even done that. You cannot argue against you don't have a basic understanding of and you don't even have that. Go read the wiki entry, look at the pictures, read about the dating methods, read about the evidence, then attempt to spout whatever you want... -_-
lordlandraid 9 months ago
@lordlandraid So yo're telling me that only single celled animals and then a few multi-celled ones lived in the pre-cambrian and then, all the sudden a vast array (or should I say half-vast) of large multi-cellular just appeared some Tuesday afternoon 500,000,000 years ago? I'm the one that needs to "learn something"...RIGHT! I see you insult everyone you talk to here. You must be really popular in person. God bless.
bheadh 9 months ago
look genius.. the keyword that disqualifies your arguement in any way is this..
you said there is alot of time for generations to have mutations passed on .. what the hell does that mean man.. dont u know that mutation is not evolution jr. mutation is not a good thing.. infact mutation = death. mutation does not result in evolution.
have u even taking biology class? thats basic stuff
eggman1600 1 year ago
@eggman1600 Firstly that's not a "key word", because a key word is one word. That's a paragraph you posted.
And mutations don't cause death, what made you think that? You probably either have a warped idea of what a mutation is, or you're thinking of a specific kind of mutations. Mutations can be fatal, they also can be helpful. The vast majority are neutral. Seriously, what makes you think "mutation = death"?
Btw, mutation + natural selection = evolution, so yeah, it does result in evolution.
Oicurmtoyoy 1 year ago
This video is so wrong I don't even know where to start. He doesn't even know what the term Cambrian explosion means. He has confused the term Cambrian explosion with the Cambrian record. If it wasn't so late in the evening I would point out what a load this is. Unbelievable.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester lol you clearly have no idea what your talking about. great video!
gkeeper86 1 year ago
@gkeeper86 The initial radiation event (biologies big bang) occurs at between 3 to 10 million years. Some Chinese observers say even shorter.
The Cambrian record last 60 to 80 million years. The distinction was not made in video. This is deceptive to young minds. This has nothing to do with creationist or evolutionist. This has to do with the observable evidence. Any one who hand waives this great mystery away based on politics or their own personel world view is a fool.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester can you explain this point futher, i am interested. what is the initial radiation event? i understand the big bang's background radiation because i have a bsc physics but i only got an E in a level biology :)
wardydave 1 year ago
@wardydave The Cambrian radiation event deals with the sudden & rapid appearance of billions & billions of complex phyla appearing globally & in orders of magnitude with out any known ancestry. Although there are many competing propositions, there still tentative. This happened around 530MY ago & within 3- 10 million years, depending on who you ask. It is followed by around 70 MY rapid diversification & then mass extinction, but some of these creatures still exist today. Google Darwins Enigma.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I took it you were refering me to the book? I read the blurb and it immediately rang alarm bells. It states that there is no legitimate fossil evidence showing one species evloving into another. I would argue that this is because 'evolution' happens at the mixing of DNA with random mutations. There could never be any fossil evidence for this. Only evidence of the parents, and then the child (if the mutation made it survive).
wardydave 1 year ago
@wardydave evolution' happens at the mixing of DNA with random mutations"
I know what mutations are. There errors in the transcription process, that is to say mistakes, & many cause sickness death & disease. Many others are neutral. If there are beneficial mutations, they're very rare, but they all come at a cost to other parts of the genome. Nothing in nature comes with out a cost. I have never heard the term mixing DNA. What does this have to do with the fossil record? Mutations survived???
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I was refering to the claim by the book, and that you couldn't have fossil evidence of evolution because evolution (or at least my understanding of it) is that 'transcription process'. One or two things, genetic mutations at meiosis occur frequently, also they do not all come at a cost, genetic mutations increase genetic diversity and therefore have an important part to play. the mutations that are benificial go on to help them survive through natural selection.
wardydave 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benthemiester ''appearance of billions & billions of complex phyla '' Wrong !
There are less than a hundred PHYLA. The Kingdom Animalia contains approximately forty phyla. Most of the Phyla appeared in the Cambrian Period, not all the different animals and plants. There were only small marine creatures in the Cambrian, no land animals.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Bro, you speaking as if you were there!.. If I didn't no any better, I'd say you were there! O.o ..... were you?... Or did they came with dates attacked to them?
wisefreethinker242 1 year ago
Nice Black Sabbath intro
comtwah 1 year ago
The problem with your apologetic is that their is NO record in the Cambrian Of the evolution you suggest, found. The fully developed phyla just suddenly appears. Many of which are still (bottom feeders) on earth today! Also the Cambrian is not necessarily the beginning of all life. By being suddenly buried. It is just a snap shot of the ocean bottom, frozen in time. Accurate aging of ancient rocks is very dubious. The Cambrian is probably the same age as the Triassic-Jurassic.
Howie47 1 year ago
Let go of this untenable position friend. You're wasting your intellect in trying to prove an utterly stupid "theory". Try creationism instead, it makes sense, and keeps things in perspective. Go bless you!
MrBob6425 1 year ago
@MrBob6425 A magic man saying "Let There Be ______" and that thing magically appears makes sense?
tikifreakazoid 1 year ago
Good flag bearing... Hahahahaaaa! (The Bible says also this - they have eyes but they don't want to see - paraphrazed)
ercheksargo 1 year ago
Another ignoramus yet again exposing his meager education on a public forum. Hey wise guy, arent any of those organisms with populations that bred daily still alive today?
Before you posted this crap did it occur to you that scientists have been studying these fast breeding organisms for the last 60 or so years and none has ever observed a single one of them evolve into a new kind!!! NOT ONE. THAT ALONE SHOULD TELL THAT YOUR WHOLE PREMISE IS BOGUS MADE UP NONSENSE!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
i thunk jebus droped a cration bomb, its ovuius , seei understrand teh science , becus im i a undrstoond cration scnonce, no yu evaltonurysdarwinist cant nit even come mclose to sayon im rong , becuse JEBUS told us in teh ?BILBLE
deepwinter77 1 year ago
huc hum! just to put this into perspective:
1) we know that 542 million years ago there was nothing bigger than the size of a pea (living) and that 470 million years ago, we had most species of animal and plant here today, but we dont know whether this process took 50-70 million years or less than 1 million years!
2) 60 million years compared to the life of the universe is less than two seconds on a 24 hour clock!
jeffacake96 1 year ago
@jeffacake96 ''470 million years ago, we had most species of animal and plant here today, ''
Wrong, no we don't. The PHYLA all appeared in the Cambiran. All the species were just small marine creatures, no land animals at all.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Very nice job. :)
florisv59 1 year ago
"Science" is so hilarious. Apparently in the 19 months this video was made, the age of the Earth went from 3.85 (as stated in the video) to now 4.6 billion years old. So science hypocritically changes their stance on the age of the earth being what.. 750 million years in less than 2 years of "new discovery"?
And we trust our answers to our most important questions to this so-called "science"? Our science is weak compared to that which genetically engineered us and the rest of life on earth.
realguy420 2 years ago
The hilarious thing is that in the video I state the beginning of life is dated to 3.85 billion years ago (bya) and you mistake that for being the age of the earth. I never stated how old the earth was. Get a clue. I guess that makes the rest of your comment mute.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
@jebus6kryst Oh sorry man I am so used to science changing their dates so often, honest mistake. But I do appreciate the part where you state that the CE is the result of new niches to be filled. I mean the sky is a pretty cool niche so why can't I evolve wings? There are many ecological niches.. if humans are so evolved, why can we only survive in such few niches? We evolve into genetic engineering, moon-landing, nuclear bombing species that can't survive in simple forest like a monkey can?
realguy420 1 year ago
The sky is not a niche. You learning to fly would increase your fitness how exactly?
This comes from a basic misunderstanding of how evolution works. It is not a thinking force that has an end goal. Natural selection only selects for creatures in given niches based on what they have inherited from their parents. Just because you think something is cool does not mean you have the genes for it.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
This is a good question. The answer is that humans have found a niche that has never been exploited before. This niche is the tool-using niche. Now, there are many other animals that have been observed using tools, but humans are the only ones that have created a tool for just about every task they encounter.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Because of this, humans as a species have the largest range of any animal on earth. We are found on every continent except Antarctica before the invention of modern technology. I can also see that you are quite ignorant about the people of this world. Many hunter/gatherer groups are still surviving quite well in forests.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst In order to live in those forests humans had to construct coats and fire. No other species on Earth needs to do that. Those tribes you speak of only inhabit the easy forests, not the dense areas. Most ecological niches are suicide for humans unless we construct coats and fire. We have to use our genetically engineered intelligence just to survive in areas other species do naturally. Continent does not equal niche.
realguy420 1 year ago
Which forests are you talking about? I thought you said the same forests that monkeys live in. Those are tropical to temperate forests. One would not need a coat for that. In addition, in those environments fires are used for cooking, not heating.
Easy parts? What part of the !Kung or Hadza environment is easy? The reason they are still hunter/gatherers in their environment is that the land is so harsh.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
No shit they would be suicide if humans did not use tools, which was the point I was making. Did you even read my whole comment?
Genetically engineered? What evidence do you have for that claim.
Agreed, continents does not equal niche. However, on continents, niches are found and humans have been found in just about every niche on six of the seven continents.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Just about every niche? Yeah so many humans lived in tundra, swamps, deserts, etc! Especially before all the technology that suddenly appeared in a timespan too limited for any evolutionary process to claim. The differences between primates and humans are too staggaring to have occured naturally. The Human larynx is a complete redesign, not some evolved 'need for speech'. Humans are nothing remotely like the so-called 'pre-human' hominids in either intelligence or physical design.
realguy420 1 year ago
Yes, humans did live in tundra, swamps and deserts long before the advent of agriculture.
The agriculture revolution started around 12 thousand years ago (Ka). How is that not enough time?
How are the differences between humans and primates so staggering when humans still belong to the order Primates? In addition, humans have been classified in that order since Linnaean first created it. Nevertheless, do tell, what are the staggering differences?
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Of course, the larynx is redesigned for speech. Natural selection acted upon it. Do you not know how evolution works?
If you really believe that humans are nothing like fossil hominins, then you really need to look up Turkana Boy (KNM-WT 15000), which was post-cranially almost identical to modern humans. You can also look up the fossils found in Atapuerca.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago 2
@realguy420 ''The differences between primates and humans are too staggaring to have occured naturally.''
What?!? They are almost the same. Muscle for muscle, bone for bone, the same.
Our DNA is not even 2% different. And we are still primates, still mammals.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@realguy420 Chimpanzees can produce fantastic abstract paintings, with the help of Allah...
ercheksargo 1 year ago
The Cambrian Explosion is extremely intriguing..but i absolutely detest people trying to explain this phenomena by their own deities without using any scientific methods and/or physical evidence..
i love science..in the near future the cambrian explosion could be explained without any dogmas or faith
PhillipThunderGrunge 2 years ago 2
See ya back at the misinformation videw
crashcoreytx 2 years ago
There 's quite a bit of speculation in this. First the "eye" . The complex eye was said to have developed WITHIN the Explosion and not before. Saying that the eye itself caused the acceleration is like saying that Buddhism caused the explosion of religions in the Axial age. Also, the Creationist videos never said that Cambrian caused all life. The truth is that no one has any answers about The Explosion. Both Darwinist and Creationist rely on assumptions and speculation on this event.
0Fear 2 years ago
The creationists videos? Therefore, you have seen all the creationists videos about his to make such an absolute statement. I have seen plenty that claim such foolishness as all life started in the Cambrian.
Sorry, if I made it seems like the eye was the only reason for the Cambrian Explosion (CE), this video was simply addressing the fact that creationists claim that paleontologists try to cover up the CE. I was giving one explanation for the proliferation of life during the Cambrian.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Great video...thanks, dude.
encarta007 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Typical evoloution language. assumption
assumption assumption...Where's Darwins Tree??? The evidence does not support Darwin's Tree???? another missing link.
rudolfmanu 2 years ago
What assumptions. As I stated before, there is a mountain of evidence to support the theory of evolution. Simply because you point at one gap does not disprove anything. Address cladistics, ERV, and atavisms if you wish to address a problem with evolution and explain how all those work without evolution. All those support Darwins tree along with the fossil record.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
What I want to know is .....What happened to Darwins Tree????
rudolfmanu 2 years ago
Nothing happened to Darwins tree. Cladistics, ERV, and atavisms all point to a tree of life. Just because you point to one gap in the fossil record does not prove anything.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Can you name the transitional fossils ancestors of the more than 100 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?
Texoki 2 years ago
No, can you name what phyla you are in?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Thanks for your explanation and rebuttal for the creationist.
Dwicker64 2 years ago 2
My only criticism I have is that your image of a jawless fish (2:34) is a fish from the Silurian period (tens of million of years after the Cambrian). The most advanced fish of the cambrian was haikouithys
ProcInc 2 years ago
Well done. Great presentation.
SebGarth 2 years ago
Nice work!
TempestWriter 2 years ago
Good explanation and think you for it! I was having a similar experience here on youtube looking for cambrian explosion info, and could only find abunch of creationist-slanted videos refuting darwinism, when all the while I knew what you said was the explaination. Kudos to you!
kalbossa 3 years ago
very well done presentation, and in such a short amount of time.
ytben26 3 years ago