Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
27 online now:
Faith, LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (4 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,719 Year: 18,755/19,786 Month: 1,175/1,705 Week: 427/518 Day: 45/58 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Friendly Q&A
Lammy
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 3611
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 16 of 25 (190107)
03-04-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Gary
03-04-2005 6:15 PM


Gary writes:

We just need to treat those who ask questions as intelligent people who want to learn something.


I agree completely. This is why we need to answer from individual to individual. Questions reveal the questioners' preconceived notions.

For example, I would give a much more detail answer to someone who asks something like "if evolution is true then why do we have so little fossil record of human evolution?" than someone who asks something like "if we descended from monkeys then how come current monkeys aren't evolving?"

I don't think it is fair to treat everyone the same way. Some will undoubtedly already know some of the basics required. Others will know zippo about science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Gary, posted 03-04-2005 6:15 PM Gary has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 25 (190108)
03-04-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Lammy
03-04-2005 5:42 PM


Re: Be a good example
quote:
I think a technical answer would be a lot more intimidating than the one I gave.

It is hard for me to pull back and look at the ToE with fresh eyes. That makes it hard to explain the ToE to lay people. On that we can agree.

The quip you gave puts the creationist on the defensive right away. Instead of getting an answer they are suddenly made to look foolish and may feel they need to defend themselves. I was hoping for more of a textbook answer than a Socratic discussion.

quote:
While your answer is simple and right to the point, I feel like it is simple and right to the point to someone that already has dealt with evolution before.

That's the kind of input this thread needs. How would you phrase it, within the confines of a "textbook" answer?

quote:
If someone really takes this question seriously (which by the way I've seen this question/argument a kazillion times before), you really think he is going to understand anything you wrote up there?

Honestly, yes I do. At least I hope so. I can't think of a better way of explaining it without being too vague.

When I hear the "if men no apes" question asked it is often due to a poor understanding of evolution, that the progression of species looks like a ladder instead of a branching tree. Instead of saying "we came from dirt, why is there still dirt" you could have said that we came from repitles, there are still reptiles. We came from fish, and there are still fish. We came from bacteria, and there are still bacteria. I think this type of approach might have worked better, but again, this is my opinion and I could be totally off-base.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Lammy, posted 03-04-2005 5:42 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Lammy, posted 03-04-2005 6:52 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Lammy
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 3611
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 18 of 25 (190112)
03-04-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Loudmouth
03-04-2005 6:30 PM


Re: Be a good example
Loudmouth writes:

The quip you gave puts the creationist on the defensive right away. Instead of getting an answer they are suddenly made to look foolish and may feel they need to defend themselves.


And so they should. Think of it as a nudge on the back for them to realize that there is a much bigger world out there.

Again, I would not give such an answer to a question that seem more thought out than that.

How would you phrase it, within the confines of a "textbook" answer?

Thank goodness I'm not an educator.


People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 03-04-2005 6:30 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 19 of 25 (190113)
03-04-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
03-03-2005 2:45 PM


Ok Loudmouth I'll give it a go:

Approximately 550 million years ago, an abundance of life appeared to develop relatively quickly and at the same time. This era is referred to as the pre-Cambrian and the “pre-Cambrian explosion” of life forms. Prior to this period, there seems to be a significant lack of fossils with which to show that evolution occurred.

One explanation suggest that prior to this period there were no hard shell creatures to leave a fossil record.

I’d like comments on the following:


  1. How does this explosion of life reconcile with evolution
  2. Are there any explanations other than the “hard shell fossil” theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 03-03-2005 2:45 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2005 7:38 PM Monk has responded
 Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 03-04-2005 8:36 PM Monk has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 20 of 25 (190118)
03-04-2005 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Monk
03-04-2005 6:55 PM


Precambrian "explosion"
The shortest period of time I have ever heard allocated to the time of the "explosion" is 5 million years.

This site: http://www.es-designs.com/geol105/lectures/lecture17.html gives 40 million years. I'm pretty sure that the longer times are now the consensus.

What we get is a "non-explosion". We see many other periods with significant change in even the shortest time period. That is about the time we have been evolving separate our nearer surviving cousins. And that is under conditions with no wide open niches like there were for the first multicellular organisms.

On the other side 40 million years is 2/3 of the time that the refilling of niches has been going on since the end of the cretaceous.

This doesn't strike me as being all that anomolous at all. Especially when you examine what the end point (depending on where you define it) was. At the extreme it is a trilobite. Somewhere well through the time it is things like Pikaria. These maybe, with hindsight, represent different phyla but it takes an expert to say they are more than a bunch of funny worms.

It reconciles with evolution because we understand that allowing organisms to have wide open niches allows for evolution to move dammed quickly.

It is also not a problem as the time frames don't seem to be too terribly short in any case.

I don't see what is particularly wrong with the "hard shell" theory in any case. There are traces of multi cellular life back to around 600 million years and one would not expect much to remain of worms after 600 million years would one? Hard parts had to come in at some point. Obviously (I hope it is), that would produce a quantum leap in preservation even if there was no real change in the diversity or number of living things around at the time.

ABE
As with most of the really common questions it is important to, first, get the facts as straight as possible. Not to use old outdated information or only a few snippets from the real research.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-04-2005 19:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Monk, posted 03-04-2005 6:55 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Monk, posted 03-05-2005 12:31 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 21 of 25 (190122)
03-04-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Monk
03-04-2005 6:55 PM


There may well have been a change in ocean/atmospheric chemistry at about the time of the early Cambrian that actually allowed critters to make calcium carbonate shells for the first time, too. Before that time, the seas were apparently a little more acidic, and solid calcium carbonate wouldn't have been stable.

Now exactly where I read the details of how this is known is a mystery to me at the moment......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Monk, posted 03-04-2005 6:55 PM Monk has not yet responded

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 22 of 25 (190159)
03-05-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Loudmouth
03-04-2005 4:20 PM


Re: Be a good example
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone is going to have any hope of getting out of the dark hole of ignornance that the literalists view is based on they need to be able to break free from sources which are lying to them. They need to see how very silly the things which they are being fed are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eventually, yes they are going to have to do that. However, the whole process has to start slowly. Much like the groundhog seeing his shadow, if creationists get their head bit off the first time they ask a question about evolution are they going to be more or less likely to continue to investigate evolution? I think there should be one thread where questions are answered in a calm, logical, and plainly spoken fashion. That is why I titled the thread "Creationist Friendly Q&A". I was hoping that this thread could be a place for lurkers to ask questions they may feel too intimidated to ask in other threads. That is my hope, but reality may prove to be different. We'll see.


And here you see the problem spelled out, and it has been so many times by those who would call themselves 'enlightened', who by virtue of a little education think themselves qualified to judge who occupies the dark hole and who is fed silly things.
And this is how you seek converts to the half-truth, half-crap you present as the only way. How's the weather up there on your high horse?
Your intentions for this thread are self-serving. You do not have anything other than ridicule in mind........look at me, I am intelligent and you can be, too, all you have to do is put away everything that I believe should have no meaning to you, and accept as meaningful what has meaning to me.
I encourage anyone and everyone who has any degree of charity toward fellow-creatures, to see that you are not servants of your cause in this approach, but despotic, arrogant manhandlers in dire need of understanding that humanity is spiritual as well.
George


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 03-04-2005 4:20 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2005 10:58 AM PecosGeorge has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 25 (190164)
03-05-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by PecosGeorge
03-05-2005 9:33 AM


I encourage anyone and everyone who has any degree of charity toward fellow-creatures, to see that you are not servants of your cause in this approach, but despotic, arrogant manhandlers in dire need of understanding that humanity is spiritual as well.

What does any of that have to do with science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-05-2005 9:33 AM PecosGeorge has not yet responded

Monk
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 24 of 25 (190182)
03-05-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
03-04-2005 7:38 PM


Re: Precambrian "explosion"
Thanks for your reply.

I wouldn’t classify 40 million years as an “explosion” either, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know. Anyway, even a novice like me can speculate what mammals might have looked like 40 million years ago based on the fossil record and compared to extant mammal specimens we have today. From this I acknowledge that it is a sufficiently long time for species to undergo profound changes.

NosyNed writes:

I don't see what is particularly wrong with the "hard shell" theory in any case. There are traces of multi cellular life back to around 600 million years and one would not expect much to remain of worms after 600 million years would one? Hard parts had to come in at some point. Obviously (I hope it is), that would produce a quantum leap in preservation even if there was no real change in the diversity or number of living things around at the time.

Regarding the “hard shell” theory, there does seem to be much speculation among experts in the field, which is why I posed the question initially.

Consider the following:

"Beyond the latest Precambrian there occurred what has appropriately been called an explosion of life forms, many of which seem to be extraordinary experiments in animal design. For a long time it was supposed that the idea of a sudden rise of complex forms of life in the Cambrian Period (on the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic border) was in fact a fallacy created by the nature of the fossil record, and that it simply represented the time when the first shelled creatures began to appear. Since shells are hard objects, they are much more capable of being preserved than soft-bodied creatures. However, from recent research it really does look as though the Earth presented these early organisms with a "clean sheet" upon which to develop all manner of designs."

(Dr. David Norman, Prehistoric Life: The Rise of the Vertebrates, pub. Boxtree limited, 1994, p. 32) Dr. Norman is Director of the Sedgwick Museum and lectures on paleontology and evolution at the University of Cambridge.

BTW, If there is another thread where the pre-Cambrian "hard shell" theory has been discused, please provide the link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2005 7:38 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 25 of 25 (190188)
03-05-2005 12:39 PM


Thread copied to the Creationist Friendly Q&A thread in the Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019