Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 46 of 90 (49209)
08-07-2003 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by A_Christian
08-07-2003 4:50 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by A_Christian, posted 08-07-2003 4:50 PM A_Christian has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 47 of 90 (49228)
08-07-2003 5:26 PM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 48 of 90 (49229)
08-07-2003 5:28 PM


Forum Guidelines Advisory
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?
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 49 of 90 (49233)
08-07-2003 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by A_Christian
08-07-2003 4:50 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by A_Christian, posted 08-07-2003 4:50 PM A_Christian has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 50 of 90 (49259)
08-07-2003 6:47 PM


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 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 51 of 90 (49260)
08-07-2003 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by A_Christian
08-07-2003 4:50 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by A_Christian, posted 08-07-2003 4:50 PM A_Christian has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 52 of 90 (49971)
08-11-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by A_Christian
08-06-2003 4:24 PM


Re: Fred website
Account Suspended
The "hero" in action....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by A_Christian, posted 08-06-2003 4:24 PM A_Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 08-11-2003 2:53 PM derwood has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 53 of 90 (49985)
08-11-2003 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by derwood
08-11-2003 2:01 PM


Re: Fred website
Isn't this old news? I've seen this before, maybe sometime last year.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by derwood, posted 08-11-2003 2:01 PM derwood has not replied

MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 90 (50022)
08-11-2003 6:41 PM


Little Help with a personal debate, please?
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 of
at 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 of
gradual 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 experiments
show 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 important
to 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2003 7:11 PM MisterOpus1 has replied
 Message 56 by Zhimbo, posted 08-11-2003 7:55 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2003 8:07 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied
 Message 58 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2003 2:03 AM MisterOpus1 has not replied
 Message 65 by zephyr, posted 08-12-2003 1:31 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 90 (50026)
08-11-2003 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by MisterOpus1
08-11-2003 6:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-11-2003 6:41 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-12-2003 11:07 AM crashfrog has replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 56 of 90 (50034)
08-11-2003 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by MisterOpus1
08-11-2003 6:41 PM


Re: Little Help with a personal debate, please?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-11-2003 6:41 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 57 of 90 (50035)
08-11-2003 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by MisterOpus1
08-11-2003 6:41 PM


Re: Little Help with a personal debate, please?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-11-2003 6:41 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 58 of 90 (50073)
08-12-2003 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by MisterOpus1
08-11-2003 6:41 PM


Re: Little Help with a personal debate, please?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-11-2003 6:41 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 08-12-2003 7:46 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 59 of 90 (50105)
08-12-2003 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Minnemooseus
08-12-2003 2:03 AM


Re: Little Help with a personal debate, please?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2003 2:03 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2003 10:54 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 08-12-2003 10:59 AM Quetzal has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 60 of 90 (50128)
08-12-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Quetzal
08-12-2003 7:46 AM


Re: Little Help with a personal debate, please?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 08-12-2003 7:46 AM Quetzal 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