”studies also suggested that the explosion of the novel Cambrian animal forms occurred within a window of geologic time much shorter than previously believed, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main “period of exponential increase of diversification” lasting only 5 to 6 million years.59”
If evidence shows that the speed of evolution is faster than estimate, then the estimate is wrong.
Thanx for the history lesson professor.
”The problem of explaining how so many new forms and structures arose so rapidly in the first explosive period of the Cambrian remains, whether or not one decides to include within the designation “Cambrian explosion” other distinct events”
It is the same with cosmology, so many things to explain, and great leaps made every year.
Paleontology today is exciting!
”The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason”
What??!
That finding does NOT challenge Darwin's theory, but DEFINES it more accuratelly. Stephen, what are you doing?? Darwinian evolution does not mean what you think it means!
”They have discovered the fossilized remains of two small Cambrian fish, Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa and Haikouichthys ercaicunensis (see Fig. 3.9), suggesting a much earlier appearance for both fishes and vertebrates (a class of chordates), both of which were first thought to have originated in the Ordovician period, about 475 million years ago.”
Do you read what you write Stephen? Every great finding does just that, it keeps pushing evolution of species to earlier time than previously thought. the more fossils scientists find, the earlier is the estimate of appearance of complex lifeforms.
Actually, I solemny believe that soon a new "explosion" of lifeforms will be found that was before Avalonian Explosion.
Peleontology is detective story, puzzle solving science. The Gaps prove that there are gaps. thank you stephen!
”When I first heard J. Y. Chen describe these discoveries in 2000, I had been investigating another unsolved question about the history of life: What caused the first living cell, and the information it contains, to arise”
Interesting, you started to be interested in Abiogenesis. Me too. Basically Darwin´s theory describes the evolution and speciation. Not the origin of life on earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
But as it turns out, Darwin´s theory Can explain formation of simple organic molecules that starts replicating and turning into more and more complex life forms. But as a science, it´s not really biology.
Darwin himself ruled out the orgin of life out of his theory, even though we can apply it to it.
”Could it be that the origin of animal life was in its own way just as difficult a problem as that of the origin of life itself?”
No stephen no! animals, fungae and plantlife are just different forms of life. animals have nothing special about them.
Origin of life is the greatest mystery of universe! ( at the same level as the origin of the universe itself, of which Lawrence Krauss has made a great book about.)
”difficult a problem as that of the origin of life itself? Though I eventually concluded that the Cambrian explosion does, indeed, present a profound challenge to contemporary Darwinian theory”
What?? Really? you really do not even understand the Darwin´s theory. You have not even given any evidence against it and I have read 146 out of 1064 of my ebook!
Why Stephen Why??
You are like my Narsistic (ex)friend who talked with conviction about subjects he knew nothing about. (and as it happened, I did.)
I propably would not continue reading if I was not writing this blog to debunk your convincing and ulitmatelly false claim, but next few sentences awakened my interest:
”it didn’t take me long to discover that some scientists believed that the mystery of the Cambrian explosion had already been resolved by the discovery of some rather enigmatic Precambrian fossils. We turn to those next.”
Okay, I give you a break. for now.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti