|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4881 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
A Christian,
Evolution is theoretically based on mounds of presumptions I have to say I get mighty tired of this, let's face it, ignorant bullshit. Put your money where your mouth is, mate. Show us these "mounds of presumptions". I predict every point you raise is either logically flawed, or simply factually incorrect. Put up or shut up.
The retoric is only surpassed by the notion that pretictions cannot be manipulated through an educationally trained bias. W-H-A-T? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Both sides of the debate are violating the guidelines, though different parts of it. Perhaps we could have more substance from one side and more cordiality from the other?
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Mr A Christian, you did not address the point of my post that says science says and cares nothing about the supernatural.
Evolution is theoretically based on mounds of presumptions and boistered by educational indoctrination and matter-of-fact pseudo "scientific" television programs, leading the general public in the false notion that evolutionists know what they are talking about. The retoric is only surpassed by the notion that pretictions cannot be manipulated through an educationally trained bias. The only presumption that evolution and all other sciences are based on is materialism. Please enumerate these presumptions you are talking about or admit that this is a lie. There is no conspiracy generating pseudo scientific television programs or involved in educations indoctrination except for creationists, in regards to evolution. And by the way, evolutionists do know what they are talking about. If you don't agree, then by all means present the evidence that refutes it and you will win acolades. [This message has been edited by kjsimons, 08-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1014 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Yes, please show all us poor misdirected and brainwashed scientists how we SHOULD be interpreting the evidence - since you're such an expert and all.
How about some examples?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
A Christian,
Apologies for my earlier tone. Frustration sometimes gets the better of me. I have begun a new thread here, where you may add flesh to your assertions that evolution is based upon presumptions. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1901 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Account Suspended
The "hero" in action....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Isn't this old news? I've seen this before, maybe sometime last year.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
Hi everyone.
I'm a new guy to this forum (so go easy on me, please). I have enjoyed reading a number of posts, some which relate to a current debate I'm having with a friend of mine. One area in particular, relates to this Cambrian Explosion topic, and before I continue to talk out of my butt with him, I'd like to have some help with better explanations. I wish I had time to paraphrase his arguments, but I don't. So I'll be a useless lurcher and post his arguments verbatum. By the way, I do have a B.S. in Biology, but I'm in a completely different field now and haven't given the topic it's due attention in order to have an effective debate (so maybe I did talk a little too much out of my butt with this guy, oh well). Rather than answer them with my amateur voice, I'd like others to take a crack at it. Thanks for any help. His argument: As many as 41 animal phyla appear during a time period ofat most 40 million years (some studies conclude it lasted only 5 to 10 million years). This presents problems with ToE: 1.It shows great disparity before any evidence ofgradual speciation and growth in diversity, which is contrary to evolutionary predictions. The major body plans representing the different phyla exhibit considerable morphological isolation from one another. The number of different ancestors connecting organisms displaying this much disparity should be vast, but there is little if any evidence that they existed. 2. Consider at a sub-organism level just what would have to occur for all of these phyla to emerge - in any fashion, not just suddenly. Think of the number of novel cell types that would be required to create these phyla. After all, more functionally complex require more cell types to perform those diverse functions. Cascading down, each new cell type on its own would require many new novel proteins, and when taken as a whole, the number of new, novel proteins required for this explosion is astounding. What's more is the specificity required for functional proteins. Cassette mutagenesis experimentsshow that proteins can tolerate amino acid substitutions at one or two sites, but more than that usually results in loss of function. In other words, they indicate that the set of functional amino acid sequences is an exceedingly small portion of the total number of possible sequences. Then there's the matter, even if all of the proteins "evolved", of coordinating the functions and structures and new organs, etc. of these vastly different body plans and organisms. The Pre-Cambrian fossil record is notable for its composition of algae and bacteria, and not much else. It's importantto note also that the fossil record has preserved very well (in the lower Cambrian in fact) delicate tissues such as eyes, sensory organs, mouths, epidermis, and even sponge embryos (these can all be found in the Chengjiang region in China). I would grant the most optimal atmospheric, geological, and environmental conditions possible for such an event. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the task of creating this vast array of new proteins, new cell types, new organ systems, new body architectures, etc. - and that in an extremely short period of time by a process that can't coordinate anything unless it fortuitously falls into its lap. Given even a generous mutation rate, the chances of this explosion resulting from blind evolutionary processes (while natural selection is said to be non-random, mutation - which must come before natural selection - is driven purely by chance) is so highly unlikely that it is implausible - at least to someone who doesn't assume that evolution is responsible for it in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
and that in an extremely short period of time by a process that can't coordinate anything unless it fortuitously falls into its lap. Given even a generous mutation rate, the chances of this explosion resulting from blind evolutionary processes (while natural selection is said to be non-random, mutation - which must come before natural selection - is driven purely by chance) is so highly unlikely that it is implausible This sounds more or less like an argument from personal incredulity. I mean, even 10 million years is a long time for organisms with a generation time of a few years (or even less). Easily enough time to evolve. After all, his point isn't that it couldn't happen over time. Simply that there doesn't appear to have been enough time. Anyway, if we're arguing from incredulity, what's his position? That the Flood really happened, despite the vast evidence against it? That God really exists? What are the odds of God existing, anyway? Not high, in my book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6037 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Other than being a pretty mundane version of the argument from incredulity, it's misinformed. There's plenty of indication, fossil and otherwise, of pre-Cambrian multicelluar life, not just algae and bacteria; although the evolution of life with hard parts did occur in the Cambrian, along with pretty massive diversification.
The rest of the arguement is pretty tiresome variations on "it just seems soooo unlikely". Who cares what "seems unlikely"? We're working with time spans and processes outside the realm where our intuitions are reliable. [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 08-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
THere's a lot to be said about the Cambrian Exlosion, but I suspect that the figure of 41 phyla is based on the out of date analysis - at the time Gould wrote _Wonderful Life_ many specimens were thought to represent extinct phyla. More recent analysis has revealed otherwise - that although strange to our eyes they fit very well into the phyla that were already known.
Some other points to consider : The fossil record from Chengjiang - as well as the related fossils found at Sirius Passet and the Burgess Shale are exceptional. The fossil record rarely preserves soft-bodied life and failing to take this into account exaggerates the problem. Trace fossils from earlier metazoan life have been found, from well before the Cambrian explosion. This report from last year shows a fossil worm trail from rocks that are 1.2 billion years old. That would allow not tens, but hundreds of millions of years from animal life to evolve to the level we see in the Cambrian. To put it in perspective there is more time between that fossil and the start of the Cambrian than between the start of the Cambrian and us.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1977935.stm The "molecular clock" evidence also points to an earlier divergence. To put it most simply, while there may have been a genuinely rapid diversification much of the problem is down to the limits of the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I'm no great expert (much rusted geology degree), so I would suggest taking the following with that grain of salt.
At the time of the Cambrian explosion, there were vast ecologies vacant. Thus there was room for a lot to happen, with lessened interspecies competition. There may well have been a substantial environmental change, conductive to the happening of the explosion. I know I got a good Cambrian Explosion link stashed somewhere. I'll also search to see if there is an existing "Cambrian Explosion" topic. Cheers,Moose OK, added by edit - The only existing topic with "Cambrian" in the title can be found at http://EvC Forum: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. -->EvC Forum: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5897 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
At the time of the Cambrian explosion, there were vast ecologies vacant. Thus there was room for a lot to happen, with lessened interspecies competition. I'm not sure that's the case. Although the Ediacaran/Vendian fossilary is sketchy, the few places where decent numbers of fossils have been found indicate a fairly diverse group of sessile, mostly bilateral, soft-bodied organisms. The big problem appears to be that only a few of them seem representative of anything definitively ancestral to the early Cambrian (mostly algal microfossils and sponges). Right at the boundary there is a very rapid radiation of small shelly fauna and "worm" tracks. OTOH, there doesn't appear to be anything indicating large scale ecological release that may have caused this profusion of shelly critters. I think the apparent explosion in the late pre-Cambrian and early Cambrian is related more to the paucity of decent fossil sites for the period - the three PaulK mentioned are basically it. IOW, we're looking at an anomaly due to the record, not to the forms. Why was there a rapid radiation of shelly fauna? One possibility is we're looking at a re-population lag following a mass extinction event (the Vendian snowball hypothesis). Several of the Ediacara do appear to have the start of more rigid skeletons or reinforcement (especially the boundary-level Tommotian fossils). However, I think a combination of key innovation (like multicellularity and rigid skeletons) and adaptive radiation (exploitation of new niche possibilities based on the key innovations) rather than competition is the most likely reason behind the new profusion of different forms. I also think that we're confusing the "snapshot" nature of the early fossil beds (like the Ediacara site) with diversity/abundance. How many decent beds like Ediacara or Burgess or Tommotia have been found between the Late Riphean and Late Cambrian, say? I think we're extrapolating too much from too little data, honestly. We see the profusion of forms at Burgess, for instance, and proclaim that they must have arisen relatively quickly (a few million years at most). I'm not convinced we can make that claim without a much more fine-grained record of the period than we actually have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Why was there a rapid radiation of shelly fauna?
I read something (but where I don't know....) in the last few months that also pointed toward a major upset in ocean water chemistry around that time - calcium carbonate solubility declined, allowing shells to be more stable. It would have to be a pH and/or bicarbonate level thing, but all I have is a vague recollection...I hate it when I do that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024