New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...

Lingula, an inarticulate brachipod, Early Cambrian to recent.That's about 550,000,000 years.

Dr A writes:350,000,000 years*. If you can show me a species that's remained stable for that long, I will eat my hat. Apparently Lingula is a genus not a species. Though I'm surprised that a genus can hang on that long too.

what about the cyano-bacteria that is the oldest fossil life known: isn't it similar to the stromatolite producing cyano-bacteria of today? If the only difference is arbitrary speciation (non-arbitrary means visible\known separation between two daughter species).Sure there would be mutations and selections in between, but if at every stage these are no different than the amount of diversity within any species, then are they not the same species? (ie - problem is species definition).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

mpb1?
Any luck with your interviews?

I do this stuff in spurts... Make a little money... get back to science stuff (or whatever else)... go broke... Currently in the broke stage. Need to make some money and then get back to this stuff later... But I've gotten enough feedback on the chart to sufficiently update it. Hope to do that in the next week or two...Mark

As a grad student, I empathize.
Dunno bout you, but I retreat to science to take my mind off $.
Haven't you any time in the evenings to peruse a link or two?

Oh, good, you're still here.Would you like to talk about irreducible complexity? This is one of the simpler ones.

Hey DA,I'm not exactly sure what you mean (since this issue wasn't really brought up in this thread as a problem in the chart ” at least I don't think it was).I only mentioned irreducible complexity in the chart because it is a cornerstone of ID. From what I have read, it seems that the whole concept of irreducible complexity isn't really provable or disprovable . That's the way it seems to me anyway... But if you want to post anything on IC, I certainly don't mind. The admin will probably say to stop going in that direction (in this thread) if people start debating it though.I'll be 'out' for a while myself. Hope to get back into this stuff soon though.Mark-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

I did mention it briedly.A system is considered to be IC if the removal of any one part would make it nonfunctional.This means, say the IDers, that an IC system cannot evolve.WRONG.What they need to say to be accurate is that it can't have evolved in such a way that the last step in its evolution was the wholesale addition of a part.Well, right. No, it can't have. As an example of something not evolving that way, consider the three little bones in the mammal ear which conduct sound. (1: incus; 2: stapes; 3: malleus.)Remove one from the chain, and the system can't conduct sound. This is an IC system. And we know how it evolved from parts of the reptile jaw. We can see this in the fossil record, we can see the bones migrate in mammalian embryos, and we understand the process: how fish used their jaws just as jaws, how reptiles use the vibrations of their jawbones to pick up ground vibrations, and how we use them exclusively as transmitters of vibrations and not as jawbones, with the mammal-like reptiles coming between the reptiles and us mammals.Any questions?

gaah, the irony! it burns!