This video goes over a misnomer that the Cambrian is the beginning of life. It also shows how much of the life that evolved in the Cambrian is now extinct and that it was distinctive from the life that we have now.
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..
@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... -_-
@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 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 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 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 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.
@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.
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 1 week ago
how come all the known evidence that dont support evolution suddenly become "misnomers"?
peyupsgurl 3 weeks 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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
@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
@lordlandraid Small correction: I.E. only single celled organisms before the cambrian explosion.
lordlandraid 9 months ago