Cambrian Explosion: “Then Something Happened”

Without any transitional life forms that show small changes increasing complexity over long periods of time, in a relative blink of an eye, we see complexity of animals appear out of nowhere in the geological column. Paleontologists continue to discover new varieties of animals for example in 2010, eight new kinds of creatures have been discovered in the Cambrian rocks.

Interesting to note, the newly discovered fossils back in 2010, consisted of soft parts like eyes and gills on creatures which are alleged to be a half a billion years old in the evolutionary time frame. But the soft parts found in the rock is an indication that the fossils are much younger. The Cambrian Explosion has baffled many evolutionary scientists who are now seeking some sort of explanation on why these fossils fall way short of evolutionary expectations.

A press release by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (also found in science daily and phys.org)  states the following over this incredible phenomena…

“The oceans teemed with life 600 million years ago, but the simple, soft-bodied creatures would have been hardly recognizable as the ancestors of nearly all animals on Earth today. Then something happened. Over several tens of millions of years – a relative blink of an eye in geologic terms – a burst of evolution led to a flurry of diversification and increasing complexity, including the expansion of multicellular organisms and the appearance of the first shells and skeletons.”

Is the “second geological curiosity” going to be able to solve the first mystery or will there be more? The paper published in Nature, contains various charts, data references, and so on. One must determine if these are nothing more than props which really doesn’t solve any mystery or the real deal.  Research papers are often times hyped up in press releases to show importance for reasons like funding purposes or showcase talent or attempting to sway public opinion or any combination of those three.

Drs. Peters and Gaines confined their research to the Darwinian framework and history along with the assumed evolutionary geological timescale.

“Although Darwin and other palaeontologists [sic; Darwin’s only degree was in theology] have regarded the resultant widespread hiatus in the rock record as a failure of preservation, the formation of this prominent gap may have actually been an environmental trigger for biomineralization, thereby promoting the Cambrian explosion of marine animals.  Determining the geodynamic causes of extensive Neoproterozoic continental denudation followed by Phanerozoic sedimentation, and linking those dynamics to the timing and spatial distribution of marine transgression and biogeochemical change, is now a challenge for geoscience.”

This is why evolutionary research is way out there in left field somewhere, we see them using the “gaps” as “data” without explaining a geodynamic cause to it, nor an explanation of a cause for subsequent sedimentation that includes complex Cambrian animals which are fully formed with no transitional forms preceding them! Then we see them pass off the assumption of  imaginary geological processes with their invented imagination of  biogeochemical changes that brought trilobites out of new seawater chemistry to someone else’s future research calling it a “challenge for geoscience.” 

So what has the public and scientists learned from this paper? A great mystery that Charles Darwin called a huge gap in the fossil record but this huge gap they say is no longer a problem rather in this new study they call it the solution (using reverse psychology to make their research sound more relevant). Wait a minute! Didn’t the research paper propose a scientific explanation to the Cambrian explosion based on facts?

Here is what they actually proposed…

“During the early Cambrian, shallow seas repeatedly advanced and retreated across the North American continent, gradually eroding away surface rock to uncover fresh basement rock from within the crust. Exposed to the surface environment for the first time, those crustal rocks reacted with air and water in a chemical weathering process that released ions such as calcium, iron, potassium, and silica into the oceans, changing the seawater chemistry.”

Doesn’t that sound scientific? No! On the surface it gives the illusion of being scientific, but what they are doing is filling a gap in with their own imagination (then something happened), there was no evidence to suggest that shallow seas somehow and repeatedly advanced and retreated, wearing down sediments to basement rock all over the world! Where was the gully erosion on a global flat surface as a result of that happening or how would they know which new minerals would spring out having the ability to cause evolution to burst out? Was there a lab test about this?

So here we are told that new minerals sprang into existence somehow and then supposedly changed the chemistry of seawater where it supposedly caused an explosion of specialized complexity and diversity among the animals. This is what evolutionary scientists call the “Great Unconformity.”  Using one’s imagination to fill in the gaps and call it a greater understanding is nowhere near scientific. The press release along with the research did the public a disservice rather than a service.  Science entails a lot more than creating a man-made story.

The Cambrian explosion confirms the Biblical account of creation which says a global flood occurred. Using a global flood model, it is plausible that the flood had generated enormous tsunamis that swept ocean-floor sediments landwards, catastrophically burying progressively the organisms then living in nearshore, coastal and land environments.  Thus the Cambrian layers contain the fossils of the large variety of animals including unusual pre-Flood creatures that are now extinct like the seven-foot shrimp.

Modern geologists observe that most new sediment layers are deposited rapidly in catastrophic events but since Darwinism is invoked, it is  causing an array of complexities within its own mysteries. On the other hand, the Grand Canyon was carved by water and one can draw reasonable conclusions from that. In the flood model there is something real and observable to point to, in the evolutionary explanation of the Cambrian Explosion, there is nothing to point as previously mentioned, where is the gully erosion on a global flat surface as a result of that happening? And then point to other unobservable ideas which state, then something happened and fill it in with more ideas that were not observed.  The Cambrian Explosion isn’t just something that happened, it is a confirmation of God’s creation which can be seen today!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Cambrian Explosion: “Then Something Happened”

  1. Sorry Michael, we explained many times why you get the “Cambrian exposion” wrong. So no need to do it again.

    But here is a bonus: When YECs talk about the “cambrian,” they are essentially giving credence to the Geologic column…But I thought it did not exist! Hmmmmmm

  2. It is always entertaining when Michael berates scientists for “imagining” things to support evolution, and then in the next breath lays out a huge fantasy of his own to justify creationism. Viz—

    The Cambrian explosion confirms the Biblical account of creation which says a global flood occurred. Using a global flood model, it is plausible that the flood had generated enormous tsunamis that swept ocean-floor sediments landwards, catastrophically burying progressively the organisms then living in nearshore, coastal and land environments. Thus the Cambrian layers contain the fossils of the large variety of animals including unusual pre-Flood creatures that are now extinct like the seven-foot shrimp.

    Every word in this chimera is either unsupported by any evidence whatever, or inconsistent with other geological evidence.

    Scientific American had a featuer article on ancient ocean chemistry a couple of years ago. More recently, Science reported a study linking ocean composition to the evolution of biodiversity.[1] Googling “ocean chemistry ancient” pulls up many other references that controvert Michael’s assertions.

    A cursory Google search reveals no seven-foot Cambrian shrimp. I did find some references to giant fossils that “looked like” shrimp, or may have been loosely related to shrimp. As usual when he makes an extravagant claim, Michael provides no sources.

    This post evinces the reckless disregard fro truth that we have come to expect from creationists.

    ================

    [1] Hannisdal & Peters, “Phanerozoic Earth System Evolution and Marine Biodiversity,” Science 334:1121-1124 (11 Nov 2011). Referenced online here.

  3. Upson Downes reports that the nearest reference to a 7-foot shrimp is this one “7-Foot NBA Star Names Shrimp Species”

    The newest shrimp species in the world is Lebbeus clarehanna, courtesy of a man who knows nothing about being small—retired NBA star Luc Longley. The 7-foot Australian bought the rights to name the newly discovered species on eBay for $2,900 and named it after his daughter Clare Hanna, reports The Scientist.

    If The Scientist says so, it must be true. Apparently Michael read it wrong.

  4. <blockquote.
    Is the “second geological curiosity” going to be able to solve the first mystery or will there be more? The paper published in Nature, contains various charts, data references, and so on. One must determine if these are nothing more than props which really doesn’t solve any mystery or the real deal.

    Well, Michael, you might try actually reading the Nature paper.

    Once more—and in the same post!—Michael cites a paper against evolution which actually provides observational physical evidence FOR evolution.[1]—

    Our results therefore offer a new hypothesis for the timing and origin of biomineralization and the Cambrian explosion, both of which lag by tens of millions of years the initial origin of bilaterian animals.

    The footnote in this passage references a Science paper[2] presenting genetic evidence that, although structural diversity first appeared in the Cambrian, these animals had in fact been evolving for several hundred million years before that period, and appeared in the Cambrian record in response to geologic (i.e., environmental) changes during the Cambrian. The nature paper now shows the evidence for the geologic changes that were only hypothesized in the Science paper.

    Another major factor in the proliferation of animal body plans in a short time is the emergence of hox genes shortly before the Cambrian.[3] These “patterning” genes” allowed, for the first time, the regulation of other genes that produce specific tissues.

    Michael is really getting desperate when he cites references that—when one reads them—actually contradict what he says.

    .

    A sidelight of the Nature article: This paper showed how biomineralization during the Cambrian evolved in response to increased alkalinity of the oceans.[4] Today, human-induced climate change is acidifying the ocean. If pH drops past a certain point (about 7.4), animals will no longer be able to precipitate calcium from water to construct shells. No more clams, no more octopus, no more squid, no more nautilus, no more conch—85,000 species extinct. 23% of all marine organisms. And fishes’ bones will weaken, just as we get osteoporosis from lack of calcium.

    ==============

    [1] And he even admits that he has no idea what the ” charts, data references, and so on” actually mean.

    [2] Erwin, et al., “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the early History of Animals” Science 334:1091

    [3] Goymer, “How Old Are Hox Genes?” Nature Genetics 8:328 (May 2007).

    [4] In an ironic twist, it appears that soft organisms evolved calcium shells not for protection, but as a way to rid themselves of the increased ocean calcium, which was mildly toxic. Sp\o the reason we have bones and teeth is that the materials of which they are made was originally harmful.

  5. “Although Darwin and other palaeontologists [sic; Darwin’s only degree was in theology]

    Yet another example of Michael’s abysmal ignorance.

    In 19th Century England, most scientists had a degree in theology. Universities offered only three fields of study: law, medicine, and theology. If you wanted to be a scientist, you majored in theology.

    This also had an interesting side effect: Theologians and even country parsons of that era had some background in science from their university training. Today they do not. This is probably why creationism could not begin until later.

  6. . . . . . . . . . . .New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism
    . . . . . . Promoting Curiosity and Knowledge of True Science which Verifies God’s Word

    Since there is no comma after “Science” in the subtitle of this blog, the phrase that follows it is grammatiially restrictive, rather than appositive. That is, the blog only concerns that part of science which aligns itself with the Bible. The rest of science need not apply.

    And that is what we have been getting. Only those scientific results which can be shoehorned, or which can be misinterpreted to conform, to Michael’s perverted notion of what the Bibkle teaches. All else is ignored or denied.

  7. Modern geologists observe that most new sediment layers are deposited rapidly in catastrophic events….

    THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. Yet more proof that Michael will resort to any means to advance his doomed cause.

    Please provide even one source that confirms this outrageous statement.

    (Remember, the amended Scopie’s Law (q.v.)says that any use of Answers in Genesis in an argument is an automatic forfeit.)

  8. Doesn’t that sound scientific? No! On the surface it gives the illusion of being scientific, but what they are doing is filling a gap in with their own imagination (then something happened), there was no evidence to suggest that shallow seas somehow and repeatedly advanced and retreated, wearing down sediments to basement rock all over the world! Where was the gully erosion on a global flat surface as a result of that happening or how would they know which new minerals would spring out having the ability to cause evolution to burst out? Was there a lab test about this?

    Michael again displays his ignorance,.

    Evidence gathered over the past 150 years[1] shows the advance and retreat of large shallow seas over much of prese4nt-day North America. Michael apparently didn’t even read the Nature article, because it references experiments involving sea-level changes in the Cambrian.[2] Another recent reference presenting evidence for these changes is Haq & Schutter, (2008). “A Chronology of Paleozoic Sea-Level Changes”. Science 322:64–8. (2008).

    Yet another example of Michael’s flagrant disregard for honesty.

    The lack of “gully erosion” is a complete fabrication. He just made it up. There was no “globally flat surface.”— why would anyonethink this was necessary, or even that it occurred? In fact, erosion requires some kind of altitude difference to allow the erosion products to wash into the sea. Michael doesn’t even make sense here.

    As to which “new materials” would spring out—well, that seems a little obvious. The ones that would be eroded are the ones which were there already. This is not historical. We see it happening today. A prime example is the famous Cliffs of Dover. The chalk that erodes from these cliffs is calcium carbonate—the material which forms shells. We don’t need to test this in the lab. We can watch it happening, all over the world.

    Michael also demonstrates his ignorance of evolution. The carbonate minerals did not “cause” any evolution. The increasing alkalinity of the oceans selected those animals which could tolerate higher levels of calcium. They tolerated it the same way any other organism tolerates a toxic chemical—by excreting it. This is what our kidneys do, for example. Cambrian organisms got rid of it by combining it chemically with polysaccharides and glycoproteins that they had already produced.[3] As frequently happens in evolution, this method of excreting the calcium turned out to have a strong advantage for natural selection. It provided protection from predators.

    So everything in the above quotation is factually incorrect. Another perfect score for Michael.

    ================

    [1] Starting with Louis Agassiz. He was also the first to propose the existence of ice ages.

    [2] See especially footnotes 12, 17, and 23.

    [3] When that happens to us, we call them :kidney stones.

  9. NEWS, NEWS, THEY CRIED

    Michael will no doubt be eager to learn of an upcoming symposium at Stanford School of Law.

    On May 11, a gaggle of leading legal lights will discuss the impact of the 1987 case Edwards v. Agullard, on the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision. Entitled “Science and Religion in the Classroom,” the symposium includes Ronald Friedman, Ronald Numbers, Michael Ruse, and Eugenie Scott.

    As Michael knows all too well, this is the case that held definitively that “creation science”[1] is not science at all, but religion in sheep’s clothing. The three main sessions are: “History of the Creation Science Movement and Legal Controversy,” “Edward’s Constitutional Legacy,” and “Does the Debate Matter?”

    If there is a bus from East Overshoe to Palo Alto, I’m sure Michael will wish to attend.

    ===============

    [1] And thereby its predecessors, creationism and natural theology. And, going forward via Kitzmiller v. Dover, to the miasma of intelligent design.

  10. Ho hum. Week & a half since last post. Apparently there is a dearth of material that can be twisted into a semblance of support for creationism,

    Here’s a topic for Michael to chew on. He keeps saying that evolution is ot an experimental science. Yet we have Lenski and many other experiments showing how evolution occurs in the present time. Here’s another one:

    Denet & Banfield, “:In Situ Evolutionary Rate Measurements Show Ecological Success of recently Emerged Bacterial Hybrids” Science 336:462-466 (27 Apr 2012)

    Experiments on high-acidic environment bacterial determined rates of mutation, recombination, and horizontal gene transfer. Whereas Lenski measured rates of evolution of bacteria in a test tube, Denet & Banfield studied them in the wild, in their own native environment. It turned out that evolutionary mechanisms led to a high rate of adaptation . Several entirely new strains appeared over the past few decades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s