Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 6 of 77 (539470)
12-16-2009 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peg
12-16-2009 3:58 AM


Hi Peg,
This thread seems like a good place to respond to a message deemed off-topic when it was first posted. The original has been hidden, so here it is again;
Peg writes:
Granny Magda writes:
Could you at least give me some kind of signal that you understand what I'm saying? Even if you disagree, it would be nice to know that you are getting my point here.
Yes, i do get the point. Evolution is the development of the species after life somehow appeared on earth.
But do you also understand that life must have begun on the molecular level before natural selection could have selected any animals to survive and reproduce offspring?
Granny Magda writes:
I asked how you can demonstrate that evolution requires a natural origin.
isnt a natural origin what evolution is all about? Isnt that why evolution is so fiercly contested by creationists?
Granny Magda writes:
I'm trying to get at the fact that many possible origins are compatible with evolution, both natural and supernatural. Do you see where I'm coming from?
Yes i can.
And if, by evolution, you are refering to the 'variations' found within a species, then i dont have a problem with it. I know species of animals develop over time and show different features.
But if your version of evolution includes the idea that species can develop so much change that they become a new species, then i dont believe that there is any evidence for that.
Granny Magda writes:
Supernatural explanations have an appalling track record in explaining the world. Historically, supernatural explanations have only ever been proved wrong. This alone is good enough reason to expect every phenomenon, including life, to have a naturalistic explanation.
I agree that many creation storys are rediculous...but not so with the bibles creation account which is why I accept it over other stories such as Brahman for instance.
The bible creation account shows animals created according to their 'kinds' and going forth to multiply. this is in perfect harmony with what breeding projects have found with regard to species. Species reproduce according their parents.
So,
Yes, i do get the point. Evolution is the development of the species after life somehow appeared on earth.
Hallelujah! By George, I think she's got it!
But do you also understand that life must have begun on the molecular level before natural selection could have selected any animals to survive and reproduce offspring?
Absolutely. We are in complete agreement here. Life, or at the least, imperfect replicators, must emerge before evolution as we know it can take place.
isnt a natural origin what evolution is all about? Isnt that why evolution is so fiercly contested by creationists?
Now this is the bit I disagree with.
Evolution is not about a "natural origin". Evolution itself is either a real aspect of the natural world or it is not. It is not "about" anything. It merely is.
The Theory of Evolution is not about a "natural origin" either. It is about explaining certain qualities of living things. The ToE seeks to describe realities about biology. It seeks to do this as accurately as possible. That's it. It has no other purpose.
I would also like to point out that science deals with natural phenomena because it is unable to deal with the supernatural. Thus, any scientific treatment of abiogenesis/origins will inevitably be interested in a natural origin, because that's all science can tackle.
As for why creationists object to evolution, you tell me, but as far as I can tell, the main reason is because one of the origin stories that is not compatible with evolution is the one in Genesis. That seems to be the main bone of contention. One cannot believe in a literal Genesis and a mainstream ToE. The ToE is compatible with many different origins but one thing it is not consistent with is humanity being created in our current form at the dawn of the Earth.
I hope this makes my position clearer. The rest of your post is better dealt with in the species/kinds thread, so I will pass on that for now.
I will just say one more thing in response to the post above;
Some scientists have shown thru experiments that life cannot originate by chance...
No, they simply haven't been successful in creating life so far. That is not the same as proving it impossible.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 12-16-2009 3:58 AM Peg has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 24 of 77 (539635)
12-17-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Arphy
12-17-2009 5:15 PM


Re: change is not the issue
Hi Arphy, I hope you are well.
OK, but that depends on what you qualify as evolution.
Let's just stick with the Theory of Evolution as what she is understood, eh? There is a clear enough understanding of what we mean by evolution, let's not mess with it.
Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution?
Common ancestry is one of the implications of the ToE sure. It is also clearly evidenced by the fossil record, genetics and pretty much any other observation you care to make. This is a separate issue though from the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis.
Evolution is something that can only happen when life is already in existence. Abiogenesis, by definition, cannot be a part of such a process. What we can certainly agree on is that life, somehow, emerged from non-life. Only after this can that life go on to evolve.
The point of Mod's Grand Theory of Life is that it would encompass both evolution and abiogenesis, along with every other biological theory. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Until that time, we are left discussing evolution and abiogenesis as separate fields, simply because the knowledge that might unite the two isn't in place yet.
The common ancestry of all known life isn't a function of this evolution/abiogenesis distinction though, it's just where the evidence points. There could just as easily have been two abiogenesis events, two separate strands of life. they could both have emerged and then evolved. But they didn't. It seems all life is related.
Yes the origin stories are the main contention.
That is the problem. Your attachment to these stories is what is keeping you from accepting reality. It's also what separates creation science from real science; in actual science there is no sacred dogma that must be preserved at all costs.
Did we start off with very simple organisms which evolved into complex organisms, or did we start with complex organisms which evolved through variation into many different species.
Or to put it another way, do we believe the evidence or the Book of Genesis?
This is the main contention and that is why examples of variation etc do not impress creationists.
Sure. You have the holy writ of God. Why would anything else impress you? Unless of course, you just have a bunch of made-up stories...
So what is your main contention with creationists?
My main problem is that you guys are just wrong. That and the fact that you teach others to get it wrong as well. Creationism does not fit the facts. The evidence is against it in a big way. That's really my only problem with it.
Is it not because you believe that life originated as a simple life form? Why do you insist that life had to begin as a simple life form?
I believe that life had humble origins because that it what the fossil evidence shows us. No other reason.
Is it not because if you can start life simple then you feel that a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis is more plausible?
No, it's because the evidence points in that direction. That's it. I have no philosophical axe to grind on the subject, it's just that the evidence form the fossil record shows simple life first, complex life later. It doesn't show anything even remotely compatible with the Book of Genesis. That's it.
I don't have a foundational myth that I need to cleave to. I just go where the evidence leads.
And for the record, the reason why I anticipate that a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis will prove to be the correct one (insofar as we will ever have a reliable understanding of how life emerged) is because of history. Whatever phenomena we have been able to understand, we have found a naturalistic explanation to be at their core. Supernatural explanations have always been in ready supply, but they have never been proved right. They have, by contrast, been proved wrong a great many times. That is a pretty reliable track record on both sides. I know which of those horse I'm betting on.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 5:15 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 27 of 77 (539655)
12-18-2009 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Arphy
12-17-2009 9:40 PM


Okay Arphy, let's start off by seeing if I can clear some of the apparent disagreement here.
Yeah I was hoping so but then I got some conflicting replies
Apart from anything else, that's the nature of a forum like this. Few of us are professional biologists.
If the word evolution does imply common descent from "simple" to "complex" life forms then it goes beyond the realms of biology into natural history.
I think it's important to note that there is no reason why evolution should move from "simple" to "complex". That isn't something that the ToE demands at any level. You are right that this crosses over into natural history, where the evidence just happens to be quite clear that, in general, life has progressed from simple to complex.
I don't think that the terminology really matters here. The point is that evolution and abiogenesis are (under current knowledge) not wedded to each other - they are separate fields of study, both subgroups of the field of biology. It would be nice to weld them together in some sort of Unified Theory of Biology, but we're not there yet.
If the word evolution is solely used in relation to biological change as in "descent with modification" then the word is not in any conflict with creation science.
That's largely because descent with modification so incredibly easy to demonstrate that not even creationists can get around it.
However, when we go into what organism descended from which organism this becomes natural history. So in fact you have no biological evidence against creation science.
Natural history is part of biology. That gives us plenty of evidence against creationism - or do you want to argue that the fossil record is not "biological evidence"?
Yet it is rejected as a possibility because as Britanican so finely pointed out "Because for life to have begun as anything other than simple would necessitate a designer, one who must have arguably been more complex than the life it created" and then goes on to say "simply raising more questions (where did the designer entity come from?) in infinite regress. It's turtles... all the way down." In other words, he thinks it is in the too hard basket therefore it cannot possibly be the truth. This just isn't logical.
Briterican can speak for himself, but for my part, I reject creationism because it doesn't fit the evidence. Briterican's point is valid though; if we resort to a designer to explain the origin of life, it just leaves us with an infinite regress, which is hardly very useful.
Fortunately, this isn't a problem. Science simply isn't in the business of dealing with supernatural explanations. Natural explanations are all it can deal with, which is fine, since naturalistic explanations have such an amazing track record. I for one would be dead without our naturalistic explanation of disease for example.
Are you out to find the truth, or are you out to find a naturalistic explanation? If you were really searching for the truth you would consider other possibilities even if the questions initially posed by considering that possibility may seem difficult.
Like I said (and as Meldinoor has said), science just can't deal with the supernatural. If you disagree, perhaps you might like to design a scientific test that could conclusively rule out the influence of a divine power...
I am after the truth, whatever it might be, but the evidence only points one way.
Yes, it is true that many evolutionists don't go into abiogenesis too often, however, it is stressed that life began simple and grew in complexity through completly natural methods.
It is stressed because that's what is seen in the fossil record.
This automatically implies in the minds of many people that "hey, there can't be too much difference between a very simple cell and inorganic molecules, so the likelihood that molecules turned into an organism through naturalistic means seems quite likely". The "simple to complex" is stressed because it seemingly gives hope for a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis.
That is simply untrue. It is stressed because that is what the fossil evidence tells us.
So what is the evidence used to try and support the "simple to complex" version. It isn't biology. It is the fossil record, as all of you seem to suggest, that you believe holds the key.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that palaeobiology is not biology?
So in other words, it isn't the present biological change that causes you to favour the naturalistc explanation, but rather you rely on interpretations of "ancient" relics to make your case.
You've lost me here. Natural explanation for what exactly? We use the fossil record for evidence regarding ancient life. What else would you have us use?
Do the rock layers beneath our feet really suggest the naturalistic scenario? Is the biblical explanation plausible?
Yes. No.
The Bible's version just doesn't fit the fossil record. The rocks don't tell a story of multiple complex creatures being created at once. There is no way you can twist the fossil evidence into a Biblical framework.
No, not necessarily. This is because if things have "devolved" this implies that the starting organisms were highly complex creatures e.g. a fully formed mammal that had a large amount of variation potential. This doesn't fit in with the present view of natural history after life began.
Or the fossil record for that matter. In fact, it isn't even a particularly good fit for the Bible. The point here is that a non-naturalistic explanation for life , where the first life is relatively simple could fit the fossil record and our current models of the tree of life. One which starts with "fully formed mammals" could not.
Unfortunatly this sentence isn't very good (sorry, couldn't think of a better word to put in there).
Hey! If you can't think of a decent way to express yourself, don't criticise my English!
in creation science common ancestery is also an important concept. "descent with modification" does not necessarily imply that ancestery is from a "simpler" life form.
I think I made clear that I was talking about universal common ancestry, or, as I said at the time "the common ancestry of all known life". That is certainly not compatible with Bible oriented versions of creationism, where various kinds are created separately.
This is also misleading. The fact that all life is based on similar principals doesn't in any way exclude intelligent design, in fact i would say that it is good evidence for an Intelligent designer.
It doesn't exclude an intelligent designer, no. It does however, exclude Biblical creationism. Genetics shows clearly that all life is related, not that certain groups were created separately.
But yes, the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is being eroded because of the implication of a "simple to complex" model makes a naturalistic abiogenesis explanation more plausible. Thereby hoping to create a completly Naturalistic Grand Theory of Life.
May I ask; why do you seem to think this is a bad thing? Biologists are trying to understand their field of study as completely as possible. Do you have a problem with that?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 9:40 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 35 of 77 (539701)
12-18-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Arphy
12-18-2009 6:11 PM


I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
When i used the word biology in my post I was refering to the study of living organisms today. In this there does not seem to be evidence for the "simple to complex" scenario, ...
But when you say "simple to complex", you appear to be talking about the entire history of life. That is why you are getting answers about natural history and the fossil record. What did you expect? We can hardly make our inferences about ancient life from the observation of current life alone. If you talk about natural history, you are inevitably going to involve the fossil record.
I am not saying that you cannot use the fossil record but rather that you only allow one interpretation of the evidence. The fossil record is much more subjective than for example natural selection which is something we can study in the here and now.
For the geological evidence to fit the Bible would require not only that the fossil record be "subjective", but that it be a collective hallucination suffered by thousands of geologists.
There is not only one story in geology - our recent discussion of disagreements about the evolution of birds can attest to that. There are areas of contention and much incomplete knowledge. To try and shoehorn what we do know into a Biblical framework however is doomed and deluded.
I do not not think that it is impossible for science to demonstrate the need for an intelligent designer. If we came at the fossil record from this point of view would we not see the fossil record differently? Especially if an intelligent designer (i.e.God) has told us a plausible explanation for why the fossils exist as they do (i.e. the flood)? How is this not science? It is both testable and falsifiable.
And it has been tested and falsified. Flood geology had its day. It failed. It just didn't fit the facts.
Yet most scientist only like to entertain the "simple to complex" idea because in doing so it seems to make a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis more plausible. Why? Because the mantra that science can only deal with purely naturalistic ideas and must not entertain avenues that lead to a supernatural explanation is pushed in our society.
You keep repeating this nonsense and then have the nerve to accuse others of having a "mantra".
Scientists only entertain the "simple to complex" view of natural history because that is what the evidence tells them. Disagree? Where have you ever seen a scientist saying that she believes in "simple to complex" evolution because it makes it easier to believe in natural abiogenesis? I have never heard any such statement. Perhaps you have psychic powers that allow you to read the minds of scientists and read the secret motivations they won't admit in public?
The fact is that the fossil record shows simple life first, then gradually more complex life over hundreds of millions of years. If you disagree, then where is your evidence? Where are the Pre-Cambrian rabbits? Where is the ancient complex life? I want my Pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil! It's all very well to say "Oh the interpretation is wrong", but you have to show how your interpretation makes more sense. You have not done so and until you can show us an ancient fossil of a complex creature, until you can bring me my Pre-Cambrian rabbit, you have nothing but hot air.
They may be seen as seperate but they influence each other quite a bit i.e. mechanisms used in naturalistic evolution are sometimes used to try and explain naturalistic abiogenesis.
Probably because abiogenesis experiments have revealed natural selection-like mechanisms at work in their proposed pre-biotic molecules. Again you see, the basis here is evidence, not ideology.
So in a sense they are often already wedded i.e. many naturalistic abiogenesis theories wouldn't exist without taking into account naturalistic "simple to complex" evolutionary ideas.
Yes, theories that don't take reality into account will tend to fail miserably. A theory of naturalistic abiogenesis that began with complex life would be laughably at odds with what is observed, so it doesn't exist.
Overall, you seem to keen to believe that scientists and sceptics believe in evolution or abiogenesis because it allows us to disbelieve in the god of the Bible. You are quite mistaken in this I assure you. We don't need any help in disbelieving your god. He is very easy to dismiss, without any recourse to evolution.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 6:11 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-19-2009 12:16 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 41 of 77 (539734)
12-19-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Arphy
12-19-2009 12:16 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hey Arphy,
I meant as in the present animals that we can study don't necessarily seem to be becoming more "complex".
That strikes me as rather an odd statement. How much change do you expect to see? How much more complex do expect life to get and over how long a time? I also see problems with how you define "complex". I think we can both agree that a jaguar is more complex than cyanobacteria, but is an ibex more or less complex than an ocelot? Is a tuatara more or less complex than a poison dart frog? You see what I mean...
We see very little change in our lifetimes. that is in complete agreement with what the ToE predicts. In asking for a visible increase in "complexity" you are asking for something that the ToE never predicted.
Not everything is said out loud and not every choice is conscious.
Right. So you really do imagine that you know what I and others like me think better than we know ourselves. That is extraordinarily arrogant.
Even when there was a limited knowledge of the fossil record people in the past have still been very acceptive of the darwinian "simple to complex" evolution.
That is because much was already known about the ages geological strata and their fauna before Darwin published. In fact the ground work had been done by people like William Smith. The "simple to complex" progression you describe would have come as no surprise to Darwin, as he already would have been aware of it. Again, observations first, conclusions second.
What i am saying is that it has a certain amount of charm because it implies that everything can be explained through naturalistic functions.
What you imagine motivates others to believe in this progression is ultimately irrelevant. All that matters is evidence. I could easily make the same the criticism of Christianity; people only believe it because they find it comforting to do so. This has little or no bearing on whether Christ died for us on the cross, hmm?
You first show me why in flood geology we would expect to find a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock. To find a rabbit in such a place would be very unlikely in the flood geology model.
The rabbit is emblematic. Just in case you missed the reference, it comes from a comment attributed to J.B.S Haldane, who is supposed to have been asked what would falsify evolution. He grumpily replied "Rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian!".
The rabbit isn't the point. The point is the anachronism of finding a rabbit in a period so ancient that its supposed precursors had not even emerged themselves. This would blow the ToE out of the water. There are endless possibilities for such an observation. Grasses in the Devonian, birds in the Carboniferous, frogs in the Cambrian. I could literally go on al day naming anachronistic fossil/period combo's. The point is that none have ever been found. Not one.
Doesn't that tell you something? It does me. It's a strange kind of flood that deposits its detritus according to an allegedly erroneous time line that has not yet been dreamed up.
which favour more highly complex and more organic like arrangements of molecules?
I am no expert, but yes, I believe that is a fair statement.
Unfortunately, we seem to have drifted off-topic once again. I would be happy to continue the geology discussion in another thread though.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-19-2009 12:16 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-22-2009 2:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 50 of 77 (540302)
12-23-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
12-22-2009 2:35 PM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi Arphy,
So uphill evolution (is that a better term?) is just theoretical when studying todays species, it hasn't actually been observed?
Evolutionary change has been observed in the here and now, as in the example of Galapagos finches (that I'm sure has been presented to you a score of times already). The point is that the amount of change is small. This is exactly what we would expect to see, quite in contradiction the demands of creationists, who say "Well it's still a finch!" and thus demand a rate of evolution that no-one ever predicted.
Just as nearly every evolutionist on here believes that creationists deliberatly lie, and distort or disregard facts.
It is a matter of record that many prominent creationists are liars; or perhaps you should be campaigning for the release of the convicted fraudster Kent Hovind. Just take a look at some of dwise1's tales about creationists repeating arguments they know to be false (as here; Message 119) and you will see what I mean.
For the record, I do not believe that most creationists are lying about their beliefs. I think that creationism is a delusion, propagated and supported by the very victims of the delusion. Most creationists are merely repeating falsehoods that they have been fed by their church or by creationist organisations ans their websites.
As to why creationists are so willing to be deceived, I really couldn't say. Indeed, that is the main thing that keeps drawing me back to these discussions and to religious debate in general; I cannot comprehend why people hold such peculiar beliefs.
All I was doing was giving my opinion as to why people believe what i think is wrong idea. As I am outside of the group of people that believes in evolution therefore any opinion that I have about that group will come across as arrogant (and vice-versa).
You make a fair point here. I would just say that I am certain that you have drawn the wrong conclusion about what motivates belief in evolution. You seem insistent upon linking belief in evolution to rejection of your god and this is simply not the case for anyone I have spoken to. People who have expressed their reasons to me believe in evolution because all the evidence points in that direction. I repeat; evolution is not necessary to reject your god. A quick leaf through the OT is sufficient for that.
I have no intention of being arrogant in the sense that "I'm a better person than you".
I believe you and I absolutely never thought that you were. I just think that you are attributing motivations to others on the basis of a complete lack of evidence.
Who believes in evolution "because it allows for the possibility of a similar naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis"? Can you name anyone who says that? Most evolutionists say they believe as they do because that is how they read the evidence. Are you saying that they are lying? Are you saying that you know better?
while downhill evolution is unattractive because it would logically lead to the necessity of an intelligent designer.
Flat wrong. It is unattractive because a) there is no evidence for it and b) there is an enormous wealth of evidence for the opposite. That's it. No other motivation required. Indeed, no other explanation is feasible given the state of the fossil record, which clearly shows no life in the oldest layers, simple life in the very ancient layers and gradually more diverse complex life in the more recent layers.
The fact that "downhill" evolution is only supported by fundamentalist theists and that it brings about more questions that it answers is simply icing on the cake.
Firstly many of your combos would not be expected in a creationist/diluvialist framework.
I disagree. Grasses are specifically mentioned in Genesis as being created on the third day. The simple fact is that these plants do not appear until the late Cretaceous. That is a gap of well over 4 billion years from the actual origin of the Earth and over 4 million years from the first complex life.
That is a big gap.
We never find fossil grasses in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian...
If a flood were responsible for the "fossil record", we would expect to see grasses fairly evenly distributed. We don't.
2nd, The ranges of fossils keep on extending and as time goes on and more research continues to come in pinpointing a certain organisms range in the fossil record is becoming increasingly difficult as range extensions occur
This is a non-ponit. You are basically saying "Well, some evidence might come along and bail me out... Fingers crossed!". This might be acceptable if you were actually trying to find these hypothetical fossils, but you are not. You are simply hoping that others will do your homework for you. In general, creationists don't seem too keen to fund the search for the Pre-Cambrian rabbit. I wonder why that is...
3rd, as I have shown before on this forum, just because something is not found beyond some point in the fossil record doesn't mean it doesn't continue to exist e.g. coelacanth who doesn't appear on the fossil record for supposed millions of years only to be still swimming around today!
That is one species of fish. I am talking about a group of plants with over 3500 species here. Also, there is an enormous abundance of grass, compared to only a very small population of coelocanths. It's pretty obvious that coelocanth fossils are going to be rarer than grass fossils. Grasses are showing up in dinosaur coproliths in the late Cretaceous. Why not before? We know that grasses fossilise well, why are there none earlier? Why are there early fossils of primitive plants like Cooksonia (that would probably have been out-competed by modern grasses) but no grasses alongside them? What kind of flood sorts all the grasses into the top layers, whilst picking out plants like cooksonia and depositing them on the lower layers?
but Yes, there is a rough general trend in the fossil record which is consistent with the creationist framework.
I would absolutely love to see you try and justify that statement in a dedicated thread, perhaps when you come back in January. It's not even remotely justifiable. There is a very clear pattern of evolution in the fossil record.
Merry Christmas to you and see you in the new year.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-22-2009 2:35 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 12-23-2009 8:18 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:36 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 58 of 77 (540765)
12-28-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:36 PM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi Peg,
says that 'Enchanted Loom'on page 23...
... absolutely nothing about any "sudden burst of life". You added that bit yourself.
As it happens, Jastrow is wrong. The first Eukaryote fossils date back to over two billion years ago. Jastrow should stick to talking about UFOs and how the moon landing was faked .
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:36 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 2:52 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 70 of 77 (540823)
12-29-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
12-29-2009 2:52 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi Peg,
You present this quote from me;
Granny writes:
{"Enchanted Loom" says} absolutely nothing about any "sudden burst of life". You added that bit yourself
You then go on to quote a Nat Geo article (with a broken link), which seems a strange way of proving what Jastrow did or did not say. Still, let's take a look...
Peg writes:
they dont call it the 'cambrian explosion' for nothing.
As Nuggin has already noted, this "explosion" took tens of millions of years. That is hardly abrupt. The rate of evolution at that time was comparatively fast, yes, but the increase in diversity did not take place overnight.
Peg writes:
And what came before it?
The Ediacaran biota. You know Peg, a quick glimpse at Wikipedia would be sufficient to tell you this. It's almost as though you are averse to knowing the answers to your own questions.
Anyway, this;
is an example of multicellular Pre-Cambrian life. It's called Charnia masoni. I chose to show you this one because it is a cast of the holotype, which is kept just down the road from me at Leicester's New walk Museum so I've seen it many times and I'm rather fond of it.
NatGeo writes:
"The earliest living organisms were microscopic bacteria, which show up in the fossil record as early as 3.4 BILLION years ago
Peg writes:
the first multi celled animals came along much later then this
according to the same Nat Geo article
Yes, the first ANIMALS. That is not the same as the first organisms. You appreciate the difference yes?
Peg writes:
So if there is any confusion, its because the information provided isnt consistent.
No, the article is entirely consistent. Your confusion arises from your insistence on discussing (and rejecting out of hand) a topic that you plainly do not understand. I'm sorry if I seem rude, but honestly, you are attempting to challenge one of the best evidenced theories in existence, whilst not even understanding its basic terminology. That's as if I were to say I rejected the Bible only to show that I didn't know who Jesus was.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 2:52 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024