New Time Line for Appearances of Skel...

New Time Line for Appearances of Skeletal Animals

There are 30 comments on the www.sciencedaily.com story from Nov 15, 2010, titled New Time Line for Appearances of Skeletal Animals. In it, www.sciencedaily.com reports that:

So many life forms appeared during this time that it is often referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion." Geologists at UC Santa Barbara and a team of co-authors have proposed a rethinking of the timeline of these early animal appearances.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.sciencedaily.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#1 Nov 15, 2010
"We found that with improved dating and correlation of rock sequences, the short burst of appearances goes away." said Susannah Porter, associate professor in the Department of Earth Science at UCSB. "Instead, appearances of the earliest skeleton-forming animals were drawn out over more than 20 million years."

Good stuff!

“Only a fool says he knows all.”

Since: Jun 10

United States

#2 Nov 15, 2010
I wonder if this creature is still around and looks just as it was when it got berried and became a fossil. That would be cool.

"Charles Darwin, in his book "On the Origin of Species," was troubled by the way the fossil record of this great proliferation of animals seemed to undermine his theory of evolution, and speculated that the pattern was due to the incompleteness of the geologic record."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/...

I like this quote. I have a funny feeling that Darwin's geological record will never be completed.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

#3 Nov 15, 2010
Aaron Weaver wrote:
I wonder if this creature is still around and looks just as it was when it got berried and became a fossil. That would be cool.
There are some that come pretty close. The horseshoe crab for one.
Aaron Weaver wrote:
I like this quote. I have a funny feeling that Darwin's geological record will never be completed.
What makes you think it could ever be completed? There will always be new discoveries made.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#4 Nov 15, 2010
Well, so much for it being a Cambrian "explosion".

Not that the "creationists/IDers" will stop using their silly "you can't explain how all life forms suddenly appeared in the Cambrian explosion" argument.

Uh, hello. 20 MILLION years?

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#5 Nov 15, 2010
Aaron Weaver wrote:
I wonder if this creature is still around and looks just as it was when it got berried and became a fossil. That would be cool.
"Charles Darwin, in his book "On the Origin of Species," was troubled by the way the fossil record of this great proliferation of animals seemed to undermine his theory of evolution, and speculated that the pattern was due to the incompleteness of the geologic record."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/...
I like this quote. I have a funny feeling that Darwin's geological record will never be completed.
Of course it won't. However, that is irrelevant as there is ample supply of evidence regardless. Just thought I should would point out that the creature isn't a breakfast cereal and wasn't "berried".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#6 Nov 16, 2010
Aaron Weaver wrote:
I wonder if this creature is still around and looks just as it was when it got berried and became a fossil. That would be cool.
"Charles Darwin, in his book "On the Origin of Species," was troubled by the way the fossil record of this great proliferation of animals seemed to undermine his theory of evolution, and speculated that the pattern was due to the incompleteness of the geologic record."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/...
I like this quote. I have a funny feeling that Darwin's geological record will never be completed.
Hey Aaron, what's the "scientific theory" of IDC? Why are you *still* unable to answer this simple question?
Plankton

Melbourne, Australia

#7 Jan 3, 2011
"We found that with improved dating and correlation of rock sequences, the short burst of appearances goes away."

Improved dating :):)

It's time to go back, back to the future and date every discovered fossil.
Plankton

Melbourne, Australia

#8 Jan 3, 2011
I must be the only one that finds that paragraph humorous?
On one side of the coin you have the creationists for so long whinging that dating techniques are not accurate, then you have the atheists/evolutionists whinging back that its scientific and its always been accurate. Then a scientific paper (or at least an abstract of it) comes out stating that we are now using an improved dating technique.:-):-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#9 Jan 4, 2011
Plankton wrote:
I must be the only one that finds that paragraph humorous?
On one side of the coin you have the creationists for so long whinging that dating techniques are not accurate, then you have the atheists/evolutionists whinging back that its scientific and its always been accurate. Then a scientific paper (or at least an abstract of it) comes out stating that we are now using an improved dating technique.:-):-)
False dichotomy. First, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Second, we already know that dating techniques are being refined all the time. Each technique has a different personality, and must be used in the right way to get accurate results. They are then compared with other dating techniques in order to verify or falsify them.

Creationists on the other hand don't give a crud about dating techniques or science in general. If they're young Earthers, they will reject dating out of hand because it is not consistent with their baseless religious beliefs. They will then point to any situation they can find with anomolous results using dating techniques, misrepresent them, or outright lie about... well pretty much everything.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#10 Jan 4, 2011
Plankton wrote:
I must be the only one that finds that paragraph humorous?
On one side of the coin you have the creationists for so long whinging that dating techniques are not accurate, then you have the atheists/evolutionists whinging back that its scientific and its always been accurate. Then a scientific paper (or at least an abstract of it) comes out stating that we are now using an improved dating technique.:-):-)
Well, at one point in time sun dials were the state-of-the-art timepiece. We now have atomic clocks.

What is your problem, exactly, with an increase in PRECISION and ACCURACY?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#11 Jan 4, 2011
Aaron Weaver wrote:
I wonder if this creature is still around and looks just as it was when it got berried and became a fossil. That would be cool.
"Charles Darwin, in his book "On the Origin of Species," was troubled by the way the fossil record of this great proliferation of animals seemed to undermine his theory of evolution, and speculated that the pattern was due to the incompleteness of the geologic record."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/...
I like this quote. I have a funny feeling that Darwin's geological record will never be completed.
Berried, indeed. I suppose you borrow books at the liberry, too?
Plankton

Hawthorn, Australia

#12 Jan 5, 2011
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
False dichotomy. First, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Second, we already know that dating techniques are being refined all the time. Each technique has a different personality, and must be used in the right way to get accurate results. They are then compared with other dating techniques in order to verify or falsify them.
Creationists on the other hand don't give a crud about dating techniques or science in general. If they're young Earthers, they will reject dating out of hand because it is not consistent with their baseless religious beliefs. They will then point to any situation they can find with anomolous results using dating techniques, misrepresent them, or outright lie about... well pretty much everything.
I agree pretty much in whole with what you have said. In regards to atheism and evolution, I will agree partially it was wrong of me to link the two, but we both know what atheists thoughts and beliefs on the world are.
On the other hand though, surely you find it amusing that creations argue continually about dating techniques and that they are not accurate, they are then shown that they are accurate they complain again, the evolutionists complain back, I then read the quote: "We found that with improved dating and correlation of rock sequences, the short burst of appearances goes away."

So in other words past dating techniques/technologies were inaccurate. Come on it's funny!:-) I'm seriously waiting for creationist to come out and start asking for every fossil to be dated again!
Plankton

Hawthorn, Australia

#13 Jan 5, 2011
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at one point in time sun dials were the state-of-the-art timepiece. We now have atomic clocks.
What is your problem, exactly, with an increase in PRECISION and ACCURACY?
What's a few million years between friends right!? ;-)

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14 Jan 5, 2011
Plankton wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree pretty much in whole with what you have said. In regards to atheism and evolution, I will agree partially it was wrong of me to link the two, but we both know what atheists thoughts and beliefs on the world are.
You mean, it's a safe bet that rational people are rational? Yeah, if that's what you're saying, then you kind of have a point. Just like Christians are irrational, so their beliefs about the world are irrational. Thanks for clearing that up.
Plankton wrote:
On the other hand though, surely you find it amusing that creations argue continually about dating techniques and that they are not accurate, they are then shown that they are accurate they complain again, the evolutionists complain back, I then read the quote: "We found that with improved dating and correlation of rock sequences, the short burst of appearances goes away."
So in other words past dating techniques/technologies were inaccurate. Come on it's funny!:-) I'm seriously waiting for creationist to come out and start asking for every fossil to be dated again!
Past dating techniques/technologies were LESS accurate. Newer dating techniques/technologies are MORE accurate. Dating techniques/technologies will likely never be "accurate." They'll only ever be "accurate with a margin of error." Accuracy isn't a zero-sum game as you make it out to be. Claiming it is demonstrates your ignorance (or dishonesty).
Plankton

Hawthorn, Australia

#15 Jan 5, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, it's a safe bet that rational people are rational? Yeah, if that's what you're saying, then you kind of have a point. Just like Christians are irrational, so their beliefs about the world are irrational. Thanks for clearing that up.
<quoted text>

More than likely. But who mentioned Christians? My mistake in linking Atheists and Evolutions was that I used a slash (/) between evolutionist and atheist.

[QUOTE who="LowellGuy"]Past dating techniques/technologies were LESS accurate. Newer dating techniques/technologies are MORE accurate. Dating techniques/technologies will likely never be "accurate." They'll only ever be "accurate with a margin of error." Accuracy isn't a zero-sum game as you make it out to be. Claiming it is demonstrates your ignorance (or dishonesty).
Not sure what your point above is, I didn't mention anything about that dating techniques ever will be accurate? The new techniques/technologies are more accurate, therefore the PAST technique/technology was inaccurate. I think you taking my post out of context is dishonest. If you misunderstood what I posted then I apologize :-)

Since: Jan 11

Hawthorn, Australia

#16 Jan 5, 2011
Decided to register, just realised you can't edit your posts unregistered, see that unquoted text in the middle, it's not meant to be quoted! It's part of my reply.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#17 Jan 5, 2011
Plankton wrote:
The new techniques/technologies are more accurate, therefore the PAST technique/technology was inaccurate.
You're overstating this. The past technique/technology was LESS accurate. Using the word 'inaccurate' implies that the older method was completely wrong and that is not the case.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#18 Jan 5, 2011
Plankton wrote:
I must be the only one that finds that paragraph humorous?
On one side of the coin you have the creationists for so long whinging that dating techniques are not accurate, then you have the atheists/evolutionists whinging back that its scientific and its always been accurate. Then a scientific paper (or at least an abstract of it) comes out stating that we are now using an improved dating technique.:-):-)
I think you are missing the point. Science has always claimed a certain level of accuracy, not that the dating claims are absolutely accurate. We are always improving and refining the dating techniques which improve their accuracy. What this is isn't an admission that Creationists were right, but an example of how science works.

A scientist improves dating techniques and shows that the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' may have taken even longer than previous techniques have shown. This is science in action. Creationists don't just claim innaccuracy, they want all dating technique thrown out unless they support their own pre-determined dates, especially Young Earth Creationists.

There is a wide difference between claiming that the degree of error in a date just went from +/- 50 million years to +/- 10 million years and claiming that anything over 6,000 years is obviously bogus because it doesn't agree with the literal reading of the Bible. I've bene to the Creation Museum and it's little story of "We just come to a different conclusion based on the same data" is pure BS. They toss anything they cannot twist to their own ends and try and justify it with comments like yours. "Oh even science admits how innaccurate dating techniques are, so God must be right!"

My suggestion is that you wander back through the histroy of radiological and other forms of dating and you will see a continuous improvement as the dating techniques get more and more accurate. This is done by scientists not Creationists who like to make unsupported claims.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#19 Jan 5, 2011
Plankton wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree pretty much in whole with what you have said. In regards to atheism and evolution, I will agree partially it was wrong of me to link the two, but we both know what atheists thoughts and beliefs on the world are.
We do? I was not aware of either of us having any psychic powers.

However people's opinions are irrelevant. Fact is, evolution is no more "atheistic" than gravity.
Plankton wrote:
On the other hand though, surely you find it amusing that creations argue continually about dating techniques and that they are not accurate, they are then shown that they are accurate they complain again, the evolutionists complain back, I then read the quote: "We found that with improved dating and correlation of rock sequences, the short burst of appearances goes away."
So in other words past dating techniques/technologies were inaccurate. Come on it's funny!:-) I'm seriously waiting for creationist to come out and start asking for every fossil to be dated again!
Yeah, funny.

It's funny that creationists even still exist in the 21st century.

Since: Jan 11

Hawthorn, Australia

#20 Jan 5, 2011
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You're overstating this. The past technique/technology was LESS accurate. Using the word 'inaccurate' implies that the older method was completely wrong and that is not the case.
No, I actually think you are not understanding it. The older technique/technology had been improved upon, therefore the old technology/technique was inaccurate. I don't feel that inaccurate implies that the the old method was completely wrong, that's your words and understanding. That's how I read into it. Not quite sure what the big deal on that one was.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

UC Santa Barbara Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Newspaper in trouble for calling Illegal Immigr... 17 hr Juan 32
News Men like Elliot Rodger are not owed anyone or a... (Jun '14) Jun 27 seeforward 71
News Expert: Dry rot caused Berkeley balcony collapse Jun 17 Ya Phooey 2
News The Low-Wage Quagmire Jun 17 tomin cali 1
News TOKYO: We are proud that Japan's bright blue li... (Oct '14) Jun '15 AM-GM 6
News Kerry meets Russia's Putin amid Ukraine, Syria ... May '15 Jeff Brightone 1
News Pricey rentals take big bite out of Santa Cruz ... May '15 To the Loon 6
More from around the web