The Cambrian Explosion Questions Evolutionary Theory !

I think I need you to define transitional. Because, there certainly appears to be forms in which one can find evidience of graduation. This would be the definition of "transition" to me. What does this word mean to you?

reply to post by Aeons

Originally posted by Aeons
I think I need you to define transitional. Because, there certainly appears to be forms in which one can find evidience of graduation. This would be the definition of "transition" to me. What does this word mean to you?

I see the word transitional, in the same way you do.

Yes there is evidence of transitional forms, after the Cambrian era and beyond.

I’m talking about the pre Cambrian era, where scientists/geologists have found imprints of species. These earlier species don’t fossilize normally, because they are boneless and for that reason these imprints are rare, and only form in the right conditions.

These pre Cambrian era species imprints, although few in number, have, as far as I am aware, not shown any transitional forms. To be fair though, this could be due to a serious lack of overall numbers of these types of imprints.


- JC

Considering where some of these imprints are found, I'd also consider that the land where they would be found is either subducted, eroded away due to age, or buried quite far under.

I have asked at the facilities that store drilling cores if anyone has been looking at them to see if they find non-petroleum related finds on them, and no one is. Now, this is still a seriouly limited depiction of what might be buried. Finding a needle in a haystack is WAY more likely. But, even so, no one is looking at all.

To give you an idea what this might mean - the Burgess Shale surfaces at the top of some mountains in the Yoho National Park. This formation can be found under the ground, and generally is quite deep generally considering it is the middle cambrian. But no one found the fossil deposits in the drilling of this formation.

Finding deposits at surface of this age, where they haven't eroded or washed away over such a vast period of time isn't that likely.

Middle Cambrian, you're getting pretty close to the basement.

Consider where these fossils have been found, and they've literally been pushed up out of the deep deep underground by the remains of a continent smashing into another continent. These mountains are relatively new (geologically), and very high (2nd highest) demonstrating the immense force they have been subjected to to push that formation up.

General comment:

Athiests Don't Own Evolution.

No matter how much both "sides" want to frame this subject as having only two possible sides, it doesn't.

Evolution does not address the existence or non-existence of God(s). It may address some human books on the subject.

Indeed, if that were so most scientists would be Atheists. But they aren't.

If you don't believe that scientists can be religious, then please feel free to visit a synagogue, a church, a mosque. In all of them, you will find scientists.

Creationists don't own God. They don't get to define the terms of what God can and cannot do, nor do they get to define what a good believer believes. My point remains true - that Creationists are guilty of the most profound form of blashemy, and stand with righteousness while committing it.

reply to post by Joecroft


All individuals are "transitional." You are the "transitional form" between your parents and your children, having traits similar to, but different from both. Your great-great grandparents are the transitional form between a small shrew-like mammal in the late Triassic, and, I dunno, a penguinlike primate living on the southern shore of New Zealand 25 million years from now.