Cambrian Explosion: Creation

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Good question, not really the subject of this thread, but I enjoy talking about Genesis 1. I do regard them as 6 literal days.

As background, the main error made when reading Genesis 1, is that they did not have a word for planet earth, they only understood land/sea and if you look up at the sky, it looks like a dome of sky. Kind of circular from horizon to horizon. That’s the heavens. So when you see the words earth and heavens, this means land and sky. In the beginning was land and sky. The land was under the ocean, formless and empty. This explains why the land is only created in day 3, much like we see a volcanic island just suddenly appearing, this is probably exactly what happened on day 3.

What we see in day 1 and day 2, is a lifting and thinning of the thick mists that were on the ocean, until light becomes visible, then they lift further and a visible expanse is seen on the surface of the ocean. Remember the story is written from the perspective of the Holy Spirit on the ocean of this dark planet before creation week.

After land appears, then the mists lift further, until the outlines of the sun and moon are seen. The Hebrew word here is “produced”, or “made visible” (Asah), which is a more flexible word used often in Genesis 1. This word is unlike the stronger more specific word “create” (Bara) also used often in Genesis 1.

Once this dark uninhabitable world is made more habitable with visibility, clouds lifted, land appears, light for plants for photosynthesis, and then plants for food. Then the bigger land animals can be created.

Whether there were microbes before, and small shellies etc living in the dark anoxic sulfuric oceanic conditions, we do not know. Some could have survived near volcanic vents.

Are small shellies, or even trilobites, pre-creation, or creation? I don’t know. I do know that those organisms that God regards as living and with the breath of life, and the life is “in the blood”, were created during creation week, what organisms those are, is subject to interpretation, we may never know, but the fossil record can give us clues.

Anyway that’s my view, very literal, but very different to the standard literal view. My view involves an old earth, but with many recently created lifeforms.

22

What genetic evidence are you referring to? I see design similarities here and there in extant dna, but we have little to go on regarding Cambrian genetics.

23

Start here:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01177-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS096098221501177X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

“ > The results of our study—which integrates fossil and molecular evidence to establish an evolutionary timescale—suggest that the Cambrian explosion is a phenomenon of fossilization, while biological diversity was established in the Neoproterozoic. Integrating all of the sources of uncertainty that we explore (Figure 6, Table 1) allows us to conclude that crown Metazoa originated 833–650 Ma, fully within the Cryogenian, while the component clades of crown Eumetazoa (746–626 Ma), crown Bilateria (688–596) Ma, crown Deuterostomia (662–587 Ma), and crown Protostomia (653–578 Ma) all diverged within a Cryogenian to early- or mid-Ediacaran interval.

The results of our analyses leads us to reject the hypothesis that metazoans, eumetazoans, bilaterians, protostomes, deuterostomes, ecdysozoans, lophotrochozoans, or, for that matter, any of the component phylum-level total groups, originated in the Cambrian.“

4 Likes
24

Thank you so much for explaining, my friend.

You are correct about asah. My apologies for making the assumption that you believed the sun and moon were quite literally created on the fourth day, as is often the case with those of the YEC position.

It sounds to me like you are essentially YEC in your understanding of the Genesis creation account, just nuanced. This helps me understand your issue with Radiometric Dating and your position on the Cambrian Explosion. Thank you!

Take care, and God bless.

2 Likes
25

I understand why you are saying I’m essentially YEC, but from a semantic perspective the letters YEC refer to a young earth, and I dont believe in a young earth, and so I’m always at odds with the association with the YEC perspective. In addition, I find their claim to being more literal than everyone else, is at odds with the use of the Hebrew word erets, which indicates the land existed before creation week.

Not only that, there is a tendency to ascribe most geological layers to the flood, whereas although I don’t believe widely accepted timeframes, I do accept the geologic column as a reflection of pre-creation, creation, pre-flood, flood, post-flood, then post cataclysm.

26

Friend,

Oh, please don’t misunderstand me. I understand the semantic perspective, of course, and I am in no way trying to state that you believe something when you do not. Hence my usage of the terms “essentially” and “nuanced”. I recognize that, strictly speaking, you’re not completely YEC in your position. However, you do share the literal 6-day interpretation of the creation account, as YECs do, which means you are “essentially” YEC in your understanding of the creation account. That’s all. :slight_smile:

1 Like
27

Thanks for the link. The evidence of the fossil record shows that thousands of species just appeared. There is no evidence otherwise.

The genetic analysis which studies the genetic differences between organisms and assumes that differences represent evolved diversity from common ancestry are just projections under evolutionary assumptions. These projections in no manner whatsoever assist in proving those evolutionary assumptions.

28

How do you determine if a species is fully formed and does not have any precursors (i.e. ancestors)? Also, why wouldn’t evolution produce fully formed species, as you define them?

It is interesting to note that most creationists are not convinced by the many hominid transitional fossils that evidence human evolution.

3 Likes
29

How are fossils suppose to appear? Are they suppose to slowly morph into different species as you look at them? Are they suppose to slowly materialize into existence?

2 Likes
30

And the molecular evidence says otherwise.

Hypothesis testing isn’t circular.

We can ask ourselves if common ancestry is true and these Cambrian groups had precursors, when did they appear? We can do molecular studies done like the one in the paper I linked. And they show deep divergence. Now, are there independent reasons to believe common ancestry? Absolutely! So we can be confident that the molecular data is correct and these groups had precursors in the Precambrian even though they aren’t documented in the fossil record. Nothing circular about it

4 Likes
31

Yes, that is the theory of evolution, and this is what we actually do observe in the occasions that speciation has been in action. Eg when trilobites radiated out from Siberia, you can see their evolution and adaptation and speciation occurring in the fossil record. This is recorded in the fossil record. And it’s not unique to trilobites. So this gradual transition is observable. Why the complete dearth of such precursors prior to the Cambrian Explosion?

32

Food for thought.

Just about 1 year ago, scientists started talking about their recent discovery of a whole new Cambrian fossil bed in China:

That’s about 2,000 newly discovered Cambrian species in just one fossil bed. How do creationists explain this? How is it possible that in 2019 we suddenly discover 2,000 new species from the Cambrian?

Perhaps creationists should take a step back and consider the possibility that our fossil collections are far, far from complete, especially when it comes to the most ancient animal and plant life.

3 Likes
33

Using the assumption of evolution to prove evolution lacks any contribution to the creation/evolution debate.

34

Where have you demonstrated that there were not precursors prior to the Cambrian Explosion? Where is that evidence?

1 Like
35

Well, luckily that’s not what’s happening.

2 Likes
36

I am going to get out of the thread the moderator tried to isolate me to and respond to this about the Cambrian explosion being the creation event. I am a retired geophysicist and dealt a lot with paleo but not of the Precambrian period. But that said, this information is easy to find in a quick google search. The cambrian isn’t a creation event. Life was on earth long before the Cambrian period. The oldest known prokaryotic cells are from around 4 billion years ago This May Be the Oldest Known Sign of Life on Earth

The oldest eukaryotic cell, the kind of cells we have comes from around 2.1 billion years ago as of 2017 if others have been found earlier, I didn’t see it. What Are the First Eukaryotic Fossils? | Sciencing

Then there is the Ediacaran period which starts at the cap carbonate and goes up to the beginning of the Cambrian. Around 100 genera of animals have been described from this Precambrian period. They were multicellar and many paleontologists think they gave rise to the shelled creatures which appear in the Cambrian. Effectively the Cambrian was the first period where animals protected themselves with armored shells of calcium carbonate. Simon Conway Morris, a famous paleontologist said that this Ediacaran period may have lacked predators, but when predators developed the response was to cover oneself with carbonate shells.

The ediacarans may have overlapped and lived into the Cambrian.

“The presence of Ediacara-type fossils in Phanerozoic sediments has been controversial, but a compelling example is the pennatulacean-like Thaumaptilon from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale. Despite the similarity of Thaumaptilon to forms such as Charniodiscus, comparisons are not straightforward because of differing styles of preservation.”
“Here we report the first Phanerozoic occurrence of Ediacara-type fossils showing characteristic coarse-clastic preservation.” ~ Soren Jensen, James G. Gehling and Mary L. Droser, “Ediacara-type fossils in Cambrian Sediments,” Nature, 393(1998)P567-569, p. 568

There may not have even been an total extinction of Ediacaran fossils at the Cambrian boundary, meaning again, this wasn’t a creation event.

“A handful of Ediacarans crossed over into the early Cambrian, including Swartpuntia (Journal of Paleontology, vol 74, p 731). The overwhelming majority did not make it, though; the few that did vanished within 5 million years. The first great experiment in complex, multicellular life was over. But we now know it laid the foundation for everything that followed.” James O. Donoghue, “Life’s Long Fuse,” New Scientist, April 14, 2007, p… 38

Also, some Cambrian creatures are found earlier in the Vendian (an old name for the Ediacaran period)

At the same time, a growing number of skeletalized invertebrate fossils can be shown to overlap with the Ediacaran fossils, extending well below the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary. Cloudina, once thought to be the only Vendian skeletalized invertebrate, is now joined by the globlet-shaped fossils of the Nama Group. Their ranges completely overlap with the most diverse Ediacaran fossil assemblages, and they are locally so abundant that they form bioclastic sheets. In addition, through correlation of carbon isotope anomalies, some Cambrian-aspect shelly fossils may now have ranges that extend into the Vendian. Anabarites and Cambrotubulus appear in uppermost (negative del13 C values) Vendian strata of Siberia, and d Anabarites may be present in somewhat older (positive del13 C values) strata of Mongolia."
“Once held as the position in the rock record where the major invertebrate groups first appeared, the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary now serves more as a convenient reference point within an evolutionary continuum. Skeletalized organisms, including Cambrian-aspect shelly fossils, first appear below the boundary and then show strong diversification during the Early Cambrian. Similarly, trace fossils also appear first in the Vendian, exhibit a progression to more complex geometries across the boundary, and then parallel the dramatic radiation displayed by body fossils.” ~ John P. Grotzinger, Samuel A. Bowring, Beverly Z. Saylor and Alan J. Kaufman, “Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution,” Science 270, Oct. 27, 1995, p. 603-604 (598-604)

1 Like
37

The massive numbers of newly found species suits creationists just perfectly. This is more evidence for the multiple number of species that just appeared, fully formed, without precursor. In addition, the predictability of creationism is such, that increasingly we will find extant species represented in early fossil records. Let’s see if this turns out to be the case in this new cache of fossils.

38

DEFEND THIS

1 Like
40

Please read the opening post. I acknowledge species prior to the creation event of the Cambrian Explosion. Whether the Ediacaran is included among that creation event is a possibility.

41

I quoted that from Wikipedia and am open to chat about Wikipedia sources. Wikipedia says:

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: