Posted on 07/17/2004 10:32:11 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Mark Williams from the British Geological Survey in Nottingham, one of the finders of the fossils, hopes to prove that the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals was not so explosive after all. The existence of such an advanced crustacean so early in Earth history upsets this theory. Richard Fortey from the Natural History Museum at Oxford University agrees. He says these fossils provide evidence that there was a long "fuse" of evolutionary development, lasting about 350 million years, before the final explosion. The fossils were found in limestone rocks in Shropshire, England by David Siveter from the University of Leicester and his colleagues. They dissolved chunks of the rock in acid and then picked through it for skeletal remains. Fortey says the fossil record can be misleading because the earlier stages of life - quite probably small and soft - may not have been fossilised at all. But he and Williams say we should look harder in areas rich with phosphorous to find better preserved creatures. Even if there are no fossils of the earlier steps of life to be found, Fortey says we can assume they existed.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
I assume he consumes mass quantities of alcohol whilst contemplating his ever-softening ancient fossils.
You can't address the first message to the list.
You just post the thread normally, then post a 2nd message ( just "reply" to your first message), and paste in the list.
PING
This is a "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" -- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc. PING list.
Please FREEPMAIL SunkenCiv or me, if you want on or off this list.
"Mark Williams from the British Geological Survey in Nottingham, one of the finders of the fossils, hopes to prove that the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals was not so explosive after all. The existence of such an advanced crustacean so early in Earth history upsets this theory. Richard Fortey from the Natural History Museum at Oxford University agrees. He says these fossils provide evidence that there was a long "fuse" of evolutionary development, lasting about 350 million years, before the final explosion. "
PING -- I thought you may be interested in this for your evolution ping list.
It is, and I'll be pinging everyone. But first I want to link to a recent thread on the same topic (but different fossils):
Old fossils contradict explosion-of-species theory [Cambrian explosion].
Just keep working at it,
and thanks.
As Darwin himself pointed out in 1859, due to several factors (including migrations and expansions, and the fact that fossil finds are often limited to small geographic areas which by luck were more suitable for fossilization than others, or better situated for us to be able to reach them), species could often seem to "suddenly" appear in a local fossil record, even if (or especially if) they had slowly evolved elsewhere and then subsequently radiated into new lands.
This is even more likely to have occurred during the early Cambrian, since it was a time during which a supercontinent was breaking up. I have long suspected that the "sudden" appearance of the Cambrian forms might actually be due to a long evolution and divergence of life in some landlocked sea, from which we have not yet found fossils (it could still be sub-sea today, making fossil recovery unlikely), which then "broke open" when the continents separated and spilled its "advanced" life forms out into the oceans, where the fossil record shows they "suddenly" supplanted the more primitive life forms which preceded them in the oceans.
This seems a reasonable hypothesis. I have never understood the creationoid infatuation with the Cambrian explosion (so called). It's nothing like the miraculous and virtually instantaneous appearance of life as described in Genesis, and it's too far in the past to be consistent with the scriprual time frame. Also, as you point out, it doesn't really contradict Darwin's theory. So why do the creationoids seem captivated with this issue? (It's not as if they're really interested in the science.)
DNA analysis has long strongly suggested that the life forms of the early Cambrian had at least 100 million years of pre-Cambrian evolutionary divergenceHmm. Where'd they get the 400 million year old DNA? Answer? There is none. Genetic studies are GIGO.
As Darwin himself pointed out in 1859... small geographic areas which by luck were more suitable for fossilization than othersAs Darwin himself pointed out, there's no evidence for gradual change from one species into another. In order to prop up his belief system, he (and his successors) have claimed that, for reasons no one understands, theres NO EVIDENCE for intermediate forms, but, again, they must have existed. For SOME REASON the strata in which they would have been found were, EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, eroded away.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Thanks for the ping!
Deep roots and simple prototypes Cambrian Non-explosion placemarker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.