Yes, it’s a silly picture. Got your attention, though.
The Cambrian “explosion” that occurred 543 million years ago is one of the biggest mysteries of biology. It is at this point in the fossil record that a multitude of animal forms suddenly appears, for reasons that are not well understood. The first animals preceded the explosion, but they were presumably small, fragile and ephemeral, containing little or nothing able to fossilize.
The earliest putative animal fossils date to the Ediacarian period, about 630 to 542 million years ago. These primitive organisms “must have had a significant complement of genes inherited from their ancestors, that allowed multicellularity, differentiation and signaling” to emerge, Summons says.
Genetic analysis shows that the first sponges date to 650 to 700 million years ago, says Kevin Peterson, an associate professor of biological sciences at Dartmouth College, who adds that sponges were probably the last common ancestor of all animal life.
Solid article with interesting questions about the origins of the gut, nervous system, aerobic metabolism. Should be a fun project for years.
#17 — ” . . . but evolution takes millions of years.”
Not necessarily, and given the topic at hand this can be a bit misleading. The most remarkable thing about the Pre-Cambrian Explosion is just how quickly things changed, after what was a vast period of stability.
Given sufficient pressure and opportunity, evolution can happen remarkably quickly, even in more complex species.
I don’t argue your overall point (which is spot-on) but modern humans are generally considered to be 100,000 – 200,000 years old. Some existing species are much younger than that.
#19 – Good catch! Thanks for the correction.
#20
In addition, you have to reconcile the Bible against facts that are observable and provable.
Fundamentally, it is a mistake to start with anything along the lines of “If you assume the Bible is true/not true…” In other words, it is a mistake to start with a presumption of truth or falsity with respect to the conclusion. Instead, you should take explanations of the proposed phenomena as stated in the Bible and see if it matches or best explains the observable facts and from that comparison make a determination of truth or falsity. In this regard, the Bible has consistently proven to be entirely lacking in comparison to scientific explanations.
#10 – grog,
i still think that reducing the bible to an ordinary historical record demeans the scripture, which in my humble estimation is designed to show how and why to be a good person
Actually, I have more trouble taking this bit seriously. Do you really think that the purpose of the bible is to teach goodness? I have seen no evidence thereof in the subset of the bible I’ve bothered to read. The 10 commandments in particular do not seem to attempt to do this. Thou shalt not kill is specifically contradicted as soon as one reads the punishment for any breach of the commandments. Further, the tale of Joshua at Jericho is one of the worst offenses against all that could ever be good and decent and moral that I’ve ever heard. How can such a story be reconciled as a story of goodness? Leave nothing alive that breatheth??!!? What did the poor animals do to deserve such treatment? For that matter, from a modern standpoint, can you honestly imagine anything that happened in Jericho that earned the mass slaughter of everyone in the city, including the infants? Yeesh!!
Do you think Bush is related to Patrick Starfish?
#25, Naaa, I think he would be more of a Plankton type guy. Just the one eye, but it sure is shifty.
#26
You’re saying that because the Bushs have an abundant hick family?