[_ Old Earth _] Hows this for logic

[Milk-Drops]

The fossil record has indeed been overturned. Here's an example.


When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

That isn't true. What fossils from the cambrian era show is that there was an explosion of new phyla, not a sudden explosion of non linage phyla. The Cambrian Era was over millions of years and there are Precambrian fossils that do show the previous lineages of the major groups. The thing is the Cambrian era ended with a mass extinction event. Also, there were no dinosaurs, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, or insects in the Cambrian era.

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Except for the whole thing were the species found in the Cambrian have been organized morphologically and shown to have a pattern.

Instead, as mentioned above, the Cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....the mutations are not show to add up and cause change over the years.

This is where I point out that for years there has been a theory call Punctuated Equilibrium and also point out that at the end of the Cambrian era there was a mass extinction event.

The theory belonging to evolutionism

You mean that strawman idealology pedeled around by apologists and Creation "scientists" that has nothing to do with the actual theory of Evolution?

tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

So you believe there is a massive conspiracy to push the theory of Evolution with a made up ideology to accomplish....what exactly?

This is always where I stop seeing the logic, the conspiracy doesn't seem to have an end goal outside of just teaching evolution? But why? If that was the entire point, then the conspiracy and resources seem so over blown and non sensical its hilarious.

The question becomes:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

The Problem is that the question you are asking is completely basis.

In the Cambrian Era there was a large explosion of new organisms due to organisms being able to live in multiple different environments. Since there was a large freedom for adaptation there were tons of ways for organisms to compete. However as the era came to a close there was a large extinction event where the majority of the organisms died off due to competition becoming fiercer as dominant adaptations arose.

Also, yes the ancestors of phyla arose, but not all organisms arose at that time. See above for a list of organism groups that came much much later.

Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. The geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the Cambrian strata are already divided into different phyla and classes.

Also pointed out above is that there are Precambrian fossils and links to Cambrian lineages.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don't present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be pretty much up-side-down.

Did you actually look at the research and findings of the Precambrian era, or did you stop when you got the answer you wanted?

To be up front with you, I found most of the information above when I was trying to disprove evolution myself, but I actually read science books on the topic.

 

[Cygnus]

That isn't true. What fossils from the cambrian era show is that there was an explosion of new phyla, not a sudden explosion of non linage phyla. The Cambrian Era was over millions of years and there are Precambrian fossils that do show the previous lineages of the major groups. The thing is the Cambrian era ended with a mass extinction event. Also, there were no dinosaurs, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, or insects in the Cambrian era.

.

You never got past the first question.
My opening paragraph stated:
When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

You didn't really explain the "no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes." portion.
You said "there are Precambrian fossils that do show the previous lineages of the major groups."

I ask....where? Can you present the ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes?

 

[Cygnus]

Let's test that assumption of yours. Show me a bird in the Cambrian. And a flowering plant. A frog. A turtle. A monkey. A tree. An insect. A spider. That's not a rhetorical request. Show us those things, and then your claim will have some credbility.
.

What you ask for is silly. It would be like asking me to show you a woodpecker fossilized along side of a jellyfish .

Typically fossils are fossilized with their own biome/fauna. You do understand that?

 

[Milk-Drops]

You never got past the first question.
My opening paragraph stated:
When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

Would you be so kind and link me to the source of this please?

You didn't really explain the "no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes." portion.

Because it's a bold statement and you didn't give me a source. I also don't answer questions on why Bigfoot likes ketchup over mayo.

You said "there are Precambrian fossils that do show the previous lineages of the major groups."

I ask....where? Can you present the ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes?

which ones would you like?

 

[Barbarian]

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

Let's test that assumption of yours. Show me a bird in the Cambrian. And a flowering plant. A frog. A turtle. A monkey. A tree. An insect. A spider. That's not a rhetorical request. Show us those things, and then your claim will have some credbility.

What you ask for is silly. It would be like asking me to show you a woodpecker fossilized along side of a jellyfish .

No, just find fossils of forests in Cambrian deposits. When you do, there will be woodpeckers. Oh, wait. There were no land plants or animals in the Cambrian. Sorry about that. But if you want us to give you a break on that, find us a mosasaur, an icthyosaur, or a plesiosaur in Cambrian deposits. All marine animals, like the other fauna of the Cambrian.

Typically fossils are fossilized with their own biome/fauna. You do understand that?

Yep. It's how I know the guys who gave you that story were stuffed with prunes.

 

[Cygnus]

Would you be so kind and link me to the source of this please?

Open a text book.

 

[Cygnus]

Let's test that assumption of yours. Show me a bird in the Cambrian. And a flowering plant. A frog. A turtle. A monkey. A tree. An insect. A spider. That's not a rhetorical request. Show us those things, and then your claim will have some credbility.

I really don't know why you would expect to see a monkey buried with Cambrian fossils....that doesn't make much sense considering the fauna and biome.

 

[Barbarian]

My opening paragraph stated:
When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

As you just learned, many classes, and a good number of phyla never appear at until long after the Cambrian.

You didn't really explain the "no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes." portion.
You said "there are Precambrian fossils that do show the previous lineages of the major groups."

How about this fellah?

Spriggina is bilaterally symmetrical, has a "head shield", and segments as trilobites do. It was also motile and moved in one direction, of the "head shield." And it is from the Precambrian.

I ask....where? Can you present the ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes?

Would you like to see more?

 

[Barbarian]

I really don't know why you would expect to see a monkey buried with Cambrian fossils....that doesn't make much sense considering the fauna and biome.

My point. There were no land biomes in the Cambrian. All living things were still in the seas.. No mammals, no reptiles, no birds, no land plants at all. Those evolved long after the Cambrian. Your idea that all these classes and phyla appeared in the Cambrian is just false. And no textbook written in the last few decades would say that they do.

And notice the not-quite trilobites from the Precambrian. There are other examples. Would you like to learn about them?

 

[Cygnus]

As you just learned, many classes, and a good number of phyla never appear at until long after the Cambrian.

I learned that many classes and a good number of phyla were never buried and fossilized with animals classified as Cambrian.
I'm still waiting for the linages....descent with modification...to be seen in the "Cambrian" record.....BAMMM they just appear...complexly developed...and you have no answer. No linage...just a question as to why there are no monkeys buried in a foreign biome.

 

[Barbarian]

I learned that many classes and a good number of phyla were never buried and fossilized with animals classified as Cambrian.

So the claim that we have all the classes and phyla of organisms in the Cambrian is false, after all?

Now that we've disposed of that story, how about you showing us two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that have no transitional forms between them? You never answered that one>

(goal posts being frantically repositioned)

I'm still waiting for the linages....

How about trilobites, then?

Evolutionary trends in trilobites
Through the 300 million years that trilobites existed, prior to their extinction in the Permian, there were many opportunities for diversification of form, starting from the presumed primitive morphology exemplified by a species such as Redlichia (left). This typical primitive morphotype had a small pygidium, well developed eye ridges, a simple, lobed glabella, several thoracic segments, and a rather flattened body form. The first trilobites were characterized by this primitive form. Among the over 20,000 species of described trilobites there are species in which aspects of morphology have diverged greatly from the primitive state. These are discussed in Fortey & Owens 1997 (see citations below). Thoracic segments were reduced to as few as two or increased to over 100, overall body shape was greatly elongated in some, or rendered transverse (widened) in others. Examples are shown below:
http://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm

BAMMM they just appear...complexly developed...

As you see,. you were misled about that. Not only do trilobites have a large and varied record of evolution in the Cambrian, we now know that the basic body form of trilobites appeared before the Cambrian, with a number of additional elements evolved in the early Cambrian to produce true trilobites.

Would you like top see some other examples?

o now will we be seeing your example of two major groups< said to be evolutionarily connected< which lack a transitional?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Open a text book.

I see I'm wasting my time. I'm not a big fan of the "dump and pass" style of apologetics that seems so popular with science deniers these days.

 

[Cygnus]

I see I'm wasting my time. I'm not a big fan of the "dump and pass" style of apologetics that seems so popular with science deniers these days.

Sounds like you refuse to open a text book. Such a shame.

NEXT

 

[Cygnus]

I learned that many classes and a good number of phyla were never buried and fossilized with animals classified as Cambrian.

Barbarian, So the claim that we have all the classes and phyla of organisms in the Cambrian is false, after all?

There never was that claim. You seem to be making that claim for me....Why are you choosing to use that tactic?

Now that we've disposed of that story, how about you showing us two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that have no transitional forms between them? You never answered that one>

Insects and sponges.

(goal posts being frantically repositioned)



How about trilobites, then?

Evolutionary trends in trilobites
Through the 300 million years that trilobites existed, prior to their extinction in the Permian, there were many opportunities for diversification of form, starting from the presumed primitive morphology exemplified by a species such as Redlichia (left). This typical primitive morphotype had a small pygidium, well developed eye ridges, a simple, lobed glabella, several thoracic segments, and a rather flattened body form. The first trilobites were characterized by this primitive form. Among the over 20,000 species of described trilobites there are species in which aspects of morphology have diverged greatly from the primitive state. These are discussed in Fortey & Owens 1997 (see citations below). Thoracic segments were reduced to as few as two or increased to over 100, overall body shape was greatly elongated in some, or rendered transverse (widened) in others. Examples are shown below:
http://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm

From your link...
So where did trilobites come from?
The likely scenario is that trilobites arose from Precambrian bilaterians, arguably arthropods, that gave rise to Cambrian arachnomorphs, among them trilobites. The evidence is neither clear nor unambiguous. The fossil record is spotty, but suggestive, and only some remarkable sites such as Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale reveal the rich diversity of non-calcified arachnomorph arthropods. The fossils of the Precambrian reveal some bilaterian diversity, among them a few species that might be candidates for trilobite ancestors....

As you see,. you were misled about that. Not only do trilobites have a large and varied record of evolution in the Cambrian, we now know that the basic body form of trilobites appeared before the Cambrian, with a number of additional elements evolved in the early Cambrian to produce true trilobites.

Even your own source admitted the record was spotty....not clear....and unsure of who might be a candidate.
What they did was simply dump trilobites on a table and arrange them according to what they thought evolution could have done. I can do the same thing with dogs. Why do you continue to be duped by evolutionism?

Would you like top see some other examples?

Sure, considering you failed with the trilobite. You can't just line up fossils and claim that's evolutionism.

o now will we be seeing your example of two major groups< said to be evolutionarily connected< which lack a transitional?
As I said above...Insects and sponges.

 

[Cygnus]

As you just learned, many classes, and a good number of phyla never appear at until long after the Cambrian.



How about this fellah?

Spriggina is bilaterally symmetrical, has a "head shield", and segments as trilobites do. It was also motile and moved in one direction, of the "head shield." And it is from the Precambrian.



Would you like to see more?

Spriggina seems to be more evolved that a trilobite...what happened? Did Spriggina lose information and become the less sophisticated trilobite?

 

[Barbarian]

Spriggina seems to be more evolved that a trilobite...what happened? Did Spriggina lose information and become the less sophisticated trilobite?

Spriggina lacks eyes antennnae, hard exoskeleton, and a number of other features found in true trilobites. So it might be good for you to tell us how you think it"s "more evolved."

And just so we know how about telling us how you measure biological information? For starters show us how much information there is in an earthworm relative to a bumble bee and how you calculated it. If you have no idea and were just using "information" to impress us I"ll show you how its done. So let's see what you've got.

 

[Barbarian]

Cygnus said: ↑
My opening paragraph stated:
When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

(Barbarian demonstrates that most classes and many phyla are not found in the Cambrian, and that the body plans of many others are found in the Precambrian)

So the claim that we have all the classes and phyla of organisms in the Cambrian is false, after all?

There never was that claim. You seem to be making that claim for me....Why are you choosing to use that tactic?

See above. You said:
When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

So your claim is then that vertebrates, flowering plants, fungi, birds, trees, reptiles amphibians, and so on, are not major groups? Seriously? C'mon. You just believed the wrong people and weren't careful enough to check for yourself.

And as noted before, many of the Cambrian body plans evolved long before the Cambrian. Next time, check before you believe anything.

Barbarian observes:
Now that we've disposed of that story, how about you showing us two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that have no transitional forms between them? You never answered that one>

Insects and sponges.

Actually, it would be hard to find two animals more separated evolutionarily than sponges and insects, but we can still show transitional forms. The animalia is divided into to great groups; those with tissue and those lacking tissue. So sponges, lacking true tissues, are divided from all the others. Consequently, if we can find intermediates between sponges and other animals, we're set. Those intermediates are a relatively rare group that was once consider to be also sponges, but are often now placed in their own phylum, the Calcarea, which have molecular and genetic characters that are more similar to the Eumetazoa than to the Porifera.


How about trilobites, then?

Evolutionary trends in trilobites
Through the 300 million years that trilobites existed, prior to their extinction in the Permian, there were many opportunities for diversification of form, starting from the presumed primitive morphology exemplified by a species such as Redlichia (left). This typical primitive morphotype had a small pygidium, well developed eye ridges, a simple, lobed glabella, several thoracic segments, and a rather flattened body form. The first trilobites were characterized by this primitive form. Among the over 20,000 species of described trilobites there are species in which aspects of morphology have diverged greatly from the primitive state. These are discussed in Fortey & Owens 1997 (see citations below). Thoracic segments were reduced to as few as two or increased to over 100, overall body shape was greatly elongated in some, or rendered transverse (widened) in others. Examples are shown below:
http://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm

As you see, and contrary to what you told us, there was a long and progressive evolution of trilobites from the Cambrian on until their extinction.

So where did trilobites come from?

The likely scenario is that trilobites arose from Precambrian bilaterians, arguably arthropods, that gave rise to Cambrian arachnomorphs, among them trilobites. The evidence is neither clear nor unambiguous. The fossil record is spotty, but suggestive, and only some remarkable sites such as Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale reveal the rich diversity of non-calcified arachnomorph arthropods. The fossils of the Precambrian reveal some bilaterian diversity, among them a few species that might be candidates for trilobite ancestors....

As you see,. you were misled about that. Not only do trilobites have a large and varied record of evolution in the Cambrian, we now know that the basic body form of trilobites appeared before the Cambrian, with a number of additional elements evolved in the early Cambrian to produce true trilobites.

Even your own source admitted the record was spotty....not clear....and unsure of who might be a candidate.

It's been just a few decades since the Ediacaran fauna was found. And we may never know which of those Precambrian "trilobitoids" is the actual ancestor of the Cambrian trilobites. But as you just learned, it completely refuted your claim. Not only did trilobite body plans exist long before the Cambrian, the Cambrian trilobites show a long and varied evolution over time. Would you like to learn more about that?

What they did was simply dump trilobites on a table and arrange them according to what they thought evolution could have done.

If you think so, you came completely unprepared to discuss the issue. Evolutionary trends depend on a lot more than "looks similar." You've been misled once again.

I can do the same thing with dogs.

Interestingly, you can actually do a fair job of identifying mixed breeds of dogs by genetic and anatomical data. It's pretty fine work, given the small genetic difference between dogs. Would you like to learn about that?

Why do you continue to be duped by people who know no more than you do about this issue/

Barbarian suggests:
Want to see some more?

Sure, (denial of data already presented).

That's not a problem. This isn't for you. You're so set in your new doctrine that you can't see outside of it. But others, who are less indoctrinated will see this also and you're doing a valuable service to them.

You can't just line up fossils and claim that's evolutionism.

"Evolutionism" is, of course, a creationist invention. Evolution is a natural phenomenon. And as you just learned, scientists don't merely "line up fossils." Maybe it would help if you actually read a textbook on the subject.

If you'd like to try again with the two major groups lacking a transition, you could make things harder for me by asking for two of the same level of taxa. Asking me to link a phylum with a class makes it somewhat easier, as you just saw.

 

[Cygnus]

Spriggina lacks eyes antennnae, hard exoskeleton, and a number of other features found in true trilobites. So it might be good for you to tell us how you think it"s "more evolved."

And just so we know how about telling us how you measure biological information? For starters show us how much information there is in an earthworm relative to a bumble bee and how you calculated it. If you have no idea and were just using "information" to impress us I"ll show you how its done. So let's see what you've got.

Information is what had killed evolutionism. Inorder for eyes antennnae, hard exoskeleton, and a number of other features found in true trilobites to "become"...much information is required to become.
So far no evo has explained how information is increased. Information is what has killed evolutionism.

Can I calculate biological information? I've never tried. Have you? Now, what I do know is the DNA code requires much more information in a bumblebee that an earthworm to allow it to fly.

Perhaps information can be calculated by the number of pieces required to allow something to function. How many proteins are required to form an organelle....how many amino acids are required to form the proteins. How many molecules are needed to form the amino acids......

Perhp how many different organelle are used just to create another organelle that serves a different purpose. How many organelle are used to create an organelle that makes the aformentioned organella.....which cooperated with other organelle to carry out a task.
...It all requires information...information outside of the ability to arrive by a process containing chance.

 

[Cygnus]

Cygnus said: ↑
My opening paragraph stated:
When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

(Barbarian demonstrates that most classes and many phyla are not found in the Cambrian, and that the body plans of many others are found in the Precambrian)

So the claim that we have all the classes and phyla of organisms in the Cambrian is false, after all?



See above. You said:
When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

So your claim is then that vertebrates, flowering plants, fungi, birds, trees, reptiles amphibians, and so on, are not major groups? Seriously? C'mon. You just believed the wrong people and weren't careful enough to check for yourself.

And as noted before, many of the Cambrian body plans evolved long before the Cambrian. Next time, check before you believe anything.

Barbarian observes:
Now that we've disposed of that story, how about you showing us two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that have no transitional forms between them? You never answered that one>



Actually, it would be hard to find two animals more separated evolutionarily than sponges and insects, but we can still show transitional forms. The animalia is divided into to great groups; those with tissue and those lacking tissue. So sponges, lacking true tissues, are divided from all the others. Consequently, if we can find intermediates between sponges and other animals, we're set. Those intermediates are a relatively rare group that was once consider to be also sponges, but are often now placed in their own phylum, the Calcarea, which have molecular and genetic characters that are more similar to the Eumetazoa than to the Porifera.


How about trilobites, then?

Evolutionary trends in trilobites
Through the 300 million years that trilobites existed, prior to their extinction in the Permian, there were many opportunities for diversification of form, starting from the presumed primitive morphology exemplified by a species such as Redlichia (left). This typical primitive morphotype had a small pygidium, well developed eye ridges, a simple, lobed glabella, several thoracic segments, and a rather flattened body form. The first trilobites were characterized by this primitive form. Among the over 20,000 species of described trilobites there are species in which aspects of morphology have diverged greatly from the primitive state. These are discussed in Fortey & Owens 1997 (see citations below). Thoracic segments were reduced to as few as two or increased to over 100, overall body shape was greatly elongated in some, or rendered transverse (widened) in others. Examples are shown below:
http://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm

As you see, and contrary to what you told us, there was a long and progressive evolution of trilobites from the Cambrian on until their extinction.



The likely scenario is that trilobites arose from Precambrian bilaterians, arguably arthropods, that gave rise to Cambrian arachnomorphs, among them trilobites. The evidence is neither clear nor unambiguous. The fossil record is spotty, but suggestive, and only some remarkable sites such as Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale reveal the rich diversity of non-calcified arachnomorph arthropods. The fossils of the Precambrian reveal some bilaterian diversity, among them a few species that might be candidates for trilobite ancestors....

As you see,. you were misled about that. Not only do trilobites have a large and varied record of evolution in the Cambrian, we now know that the basic body form of trilobites appeared before the Cambrian, with a number of additional elements evolved in the early Cambrian to produce true trilobites.



It's been just a few decades since the Ediacaran fauna was found. And we may never know which of those Precambrian "trilobitoids" is the actual ancestor of the Cambrian trilobites. But as you just learned, it completely refuted your claim. Not only did trilobite body plans exist long before the Cambrian, the Cambrian trilobites show a long and varied evolution over time. Would you like to learn more about that?



If you think so, you came completely unprepared to discuss the issue. Evolutionary trends depend on a lot more than "looks similar." You've been misled once again.



Interestingly, you can actually do a fair job of identifying mixed breeds of dogs by genetic and anatomical data. It's pretty fine work, given the small genetic difference between dogs. Would you like to learn about that?

Why do you continue to be duped by people who know no more than you do about this issue/

Barbarian suggests:
Want to see some more?

Sure, (denial of data already presented).

That's not a problem. This isn't for you. You're so set in your new doctrine that you can't see outside of it. But others, who are less indoctrinated will see this also and you're doing a valuable service to them.



"Evolutionism" is, of course, a creationist invention. Evolution is a natural phenomenon. And as you just learned, scientists don't merely "line up fossils." Maybe it would help if you actually read a textbook on the subject.

If you'd like to try again with the two major groups lacking a transition, you could make things harder for me by asking for two of the same level of taxa. Asking me to link a phylum with a class makes it somewhat easier, as you just saw.

I'm kinda loosing interest in your replies...drifting from the topic at hand....on purpose I might add.
My statement was pretty some and you tried to advance your argument with strawman like points.
I really don't care about vertebrates, flowering plants, fungi, birds, trees, reptiles amphibians, and so on no being found in the Cambrian rocks. In fact it's not even what I'm arguing about...you know that but realize your argument holds no water so you must throw in fossils of organism that we would never expect to find in the Cambrian layers. That has already been explained to you...and you continue to turn a deaf ear.

Perhaps I should have worded it this way....When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.
I'm talking about cambrian fossils only. Got it?

 

[Barbarian]

My statement was pretty some and you tried to advance your argument with strawman like points.
I really don't care about vertebrates, flowering plants, fungi, birds, trees, reptiles amphibians, and so on no being found in the Cambrian rocks.

So would you like to amend your statement and say "many phyla and some classes of organisms first appear in the Cambrian, but many others appeared before and later?" As you see, that's what the fossil record actually shows.

In fact it's not even what I'm arguing about...you know that but realize your argument holds no water so you must throw in fossils of organism that we would never expect to find in the Cambrian layers.

It is true that there were no land animals or plants in the Cambrian. A fact that badly damages your initial statement. But icthyosaurs, Octopi, Mosasaurs, and other animals are marine organisms,and they too are absent from the Cambrian. Your statement is just wrong. No way to dodge that. That has already been explained to you...and you continue to turn a deaf ear.

Perhaps I should have worded it this way....When the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian strata

No reptiles, even any marine reptiles. No octopi. No marine birds. And as you learned, organisms with the body plan of trilobites existed long before the Cambrian.

I'm talking about cambrian fossils only. Got it?

And as you see, even that's wrong. Not only have new phyla and classes continued to evolve after the Cambrian, many existed before the Cambrian, and in an increasing number of cases, we see that what were assumed to be only Cambrian organisms evolved before that time.