Re: It makes the trilobite one Kind ??? Lolling on the floor
Science has identified 50,000 trilobite species. You appear to be (very) wrong again.
They are identifying mere varieties as species.
Repeating the same bullshit doesn't make it any less stinky.
Body plan is what defines trilobites as a species all together.
If this was true, rather than your fantasy bullshit, that would mean that all mammals are a single species, all dinosaurs are one species, all birds are one species. Your delusions of your own knowledge are pathetic.
They do complicated things with their spines but it's all of a sort that the genome itself would govern, not a new species.
They do complicated things with their spines? Oh good, you are finally giving us some concrete information...
"but it's all of a sort that the genome itself would govern, not a new species." What the fuck does that even mean?
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
But you don't, nobody here does, you all have a lot of assumptions and imagination and can't possibly explain how you could get from one species to another.
We have the genomes which tell us all of the mutations that are needed. You don't have to assume or imagine anything. They are right there. The explanation for how humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes is the mutations that separate us from other species.
Normal alleles are enough to distinguish one genome from another. Mutations just muddy things up. If they do anything viable at all they change an existing allele which affects a single gene that is part of the genome of the species, they don't do anything at all to introduce anything new to the genome that could ever begin the process of producing a completely new species. Think of how many things would have to be changed by your mutations even if they did change such basic things, and don't forget to take into account that most of the changes are not going to be beneficial and many will be deleterious, and somebody here recently pointed out that mutations to HOX genes that govern basic structure tend to produce monsters. The whole theory is just impossible.
Tell ya what. I don't know if I'll go on Inactive but I'll leave this thread which has become such a ridiculous mess anyway. So you all can go back to your false but satisfying ToE nonsense, your false fossil evolution, your false fossil transitionals etc.
No, crosses have no power, that would be superstition.
If you say so. You likely don't have any hanging on any of your walls then, right?
I mean... I know they have no power, so I don't have any hanging on my walls. Just saying.
Also prayer has no power in itself but God's answers do.
I see. So the ritual of prayer has the possibility (depending on God's answer) of bringing about God's power. Sounds a lot like how the ritual of transubstantiation has the ability to change bread into the body of Christ through God's power.
But prayer is not a ritual. Only transubstantiation is.
Unfortunately this is on the same level as the answer that "microevolution just continues for millions of years."
That's not unfortunate. It's just a fact. Mutations and time occur for millions of years to produce many different changes and variations.
It's an assertion of what is really no more than belief or faith, there is no substance to it.
Lots of it is. The chimp and human DNA is.. what... 98% the same, or something like that? But, please be careful as I'm trying to use your language, you know modern chimps don't make humans... and you know no one thinks that. What we're talking about here is a common ancestor diverging, one path leading to modern chimps and another path leading to modern humans.
Something drastic has to change to make the chimp genome do something new.
What mutations would do that and what makes you think they would happen anyway?
All kinds of mutations - changes, additions and/or deletions. I think it would happen because it did... we (chimps and humans) evolved from a common ancestor. It's the only explanation that explains all the evidence.
Why wouldn't mutations add a few fingers or subtract a few or turn the fur into scales or whatnot?
1. Those are bigger, more difficult mutations. 2. Who says they didn't happen? If it happened, and the poor recipient died... then obviously their descendants wouldn't be around today for us to see them.
If you kept getting mutational trials of that sort they could last for millions of years and never produce a human hand.
Yes, that's possible. And it's also possible that the more subtle, simpler mutations could happen.
Let's look at the evidence!
Oh, look... modern chimps exist. Modern humans exist. A common ancestor previously existed. This happened.
quote: Normal alleles are enough to distinguish one genome from another.
Really ? What is a â€œnormal alleleâ€? And are you talking about individual genomes or something more complicated?
quote: Mutations just muddy things up.
If you mean that they mess up one of your favourite arguments you are exactly right.
quote: If they do anything viable at all they change an existing allele which affects a single gene that is part of the genome of the species, they don't do anything at all to introduce anything new to the genome that could ever begin the process of producing a completely new species.
Why not ? And how can you tell ? And why isnâ€™t a new allele something new ? What about a new gene ? Mutation can produce those, too.
quote: Think of how many things would have to be changed by your mutations even if they did change such basic things...
If you mean â€œbasic body planâ€ that doesnâ€™t have to change at all to get a new species. Closely related species donâ€™t vary an awful lot.
quote: ...and don't forget to take into account that most of the changes are not going to be beneficial and many will be deleterious, and somebody here recently pointed out that mutations to HOX genes that govern basic structure tend to produce monsters.
Neither of those are real problems at the level you are discussing. Itâ€™s only when you get into the details that they matter.
quote: The whole theory is just impossible.
Thatâ€™s your opinion. And your opinions are very often wrong. So it isnâ€™t surprising that this one is, too.
Normal alleles are enough to distinguish one genome from another. Mutations just muddy things up. If they do anything viable at all they change an existing allele which affects a single gene that is part of the genome of the species, they don't do anything at all to introduce anything new to the genome that could ever begin the process of producing a completely new species.
Then how do you explain the physical differences between chimps and humans if it isn't the genetic differences that separate them? What causes those physical differences if it isn't mutations?
Think of how many things would have to be changed by your mutations even if they did change such basic things, and don't forget to take into account that most of the changes are not going to be beneficial and many will be deleterious, and somebody here recently pointed out that mutations to HOX genes that govern basic structure tend to produce monsters. The whole theory is just impossible.
If most mutations are deleterious, then how are humans able to survive with 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome? If we look at other species there are even more differences. How is this possible?
Identifing different species of trilobite is very hard, but with some guidance it is possible. You can identify a trilobite from the shape of it's shell, the ribs and the spines.
See link for descriptions of 19 species, 7 with no spines. Spine locations and number vary considerably from head to toe on those 12 species with spines, as do the number of ribs. For instance:
quote:CALYMENE LOWER SILURIAN TO UPPER DEVONIAN. 430-360 MYA.
Calymene is recognized by it's rounded shell. 4 cm is a decent size for a Calymene. The calymene trilobites found in Britian usually have 19 segments and those found in America usually have 13 segments. They have rounded shells but no spines.
CORYNEXOCHIDA LOWER CAMBRIAN TO UPPER DEVONIAN. 518-360 MYA.
Corynexochida is recognized by it's flat shell. 5 cm is a decent size for a Corynexochida. They have flat shells and short spines on the Thorax. They have longer and fewer spines on the Pygidium.
The spines of trilobites have nothing to do with their relative ability to curl up like a sow bug.
The spines, when present, can be on the head (Cephalon), thorax, or tail (Pygidium ) and of varying lengths.
As for chimps etc I already said why I consider their body builds to be too different from the human. ...
Note the three lobes are longitudinal not transverse. Transverse segments - ribs - vary in number from species to species.
This alone makes them more different one to another than are chimps and humans ... if you use the same criteria for classifying the "faith species" (purportedly set by the "faith genome") for trilobites and humans and chimps.
And that is the crux of why your classifications are a farce.
As for the topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? Without discussing the use or misuse of "species" ...
A transitional fossil would have some primitive (plesiomorphic) traits/characteristics of an ancestral population
A transitional fossil would have some derived (altered) traits/characteristics compared to an ancestral population
A transitional fossil would have fewer derived (altered) characteristics compared to a descendant population
A transitional fossil will also be in close proximity in both time and geographic location (the temporal/spacial matrix) to ancestral and descendant populations.
ie -- a transitional fossil would be intermediate in form (traits/characteristics) between an ancestral population and a descendant population. Derived traits are traits that have evolved from ancestral traits.
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
This is a tentative partial list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of groups that exhibits both "primitive" and derived traits). The fossils are listed in series, showing the transition from one group to another, representing significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lineages. These changes often represent major changes in morphology and anatomy, related to mode of life, like the acquisition of feathered wings for an aerial lifestyle in birds, or limbs in the fish/tetrapod transition onto land.
Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely. Collateral ancestors are relatives like cousins in genealogies in which they are not in your direct line of descent but do share a common ancestor (in this case it is a grandparent). This kind of thinking can be extended to groups of life. For instance, the well-known Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, but it is not the most recent common ancestor of all birds nor is it a direct ancestor of any species of bird alive today. Rather, it is considered an extinct close evolutionary "cousin" to the direct ancestors. This may not always be the case, though, as some fossil species are proposed to be directly ancestral to others, like how Australopithecus anamensis is most likely to be ancestral to Australopithecus afarensis.
Order Redlichiida is divided into two suborders, Olenellina and Redlichiina. ...
The Olenellids are restricted to what was Laurentia in the Lower Cambrian, which now includes part of North America. In contrast, the Redlichiina are found in numerous Lower Cambrian locations that were not part of Laurentia. The different stratigraphical ranges are important as they form the basis for the phylenogy of Redlichiida. In fact, Lieberman (2002) has argued that cladistic analysis together with the biogeographic data supports the notion that early trilobite cladogenesis (i.e., the evolutionary splitting) occurred about coincident with the breakup of Pannotia sometime between 600â€“550 million years ago. Lieberman also conducted cladistic analyses among a group of basal trilobites within the Redlichiina, and the paraphyletic Fallotaspidoids. The group had primitive characteristics, such as the absence of facial sutures allying them with the Olenellina, and other characteristics allying them with the Redlichiina. Shared characteristics supported a phylogenetic position of the fallotaspids as transitional to all or almost all other trilobites except the Olenellina.
Location in the temporal/spacial matrix is established by the "different stratigraphical ranges" and the "biogeographic data" linking the various fossils in time and space.
You fail to take into account that the scientists who study these things are first of all dedicated to the ToE which colors how they think about all these things, and if the ToE is wrong, which of course it is, they are being misled. It isn't as if they approach their study without bias. I'm not so hampered. However, if I run across a seriously different trilobite body plan I may have cause to rethink things.
Recognising the diversity of trilobites does not require being blinded by Darwinist propaganda. We know this because trilobites are abundant as fossils and have been studied since long before Darwin. The work of classifying them into their various species, genera, families and orders was begun by creationists.
The name 'trilobite' is usually attributed to Johann Ernst Immanuel Walch; a Protestant theologian at the University of Jena. In addition to his work on the history of Christianity and the gospels, he had an interest in fossils and wrote what was, at the time, the most detailed account of trilobites in existence. He declined to make a formal, Linnean classification of different trilobite species because he felt there wasn't enough evidence to do it properly (specifically that he had very few articulated fossils to work with and so did not know which heads went with which tails). Nevertheless, despite having nowhere near the amount of materials we work with today, and despite being a creationist theologian, he clearly recognised the huge diversity of species.
quote:This head, or to state it more clearly, this shell under which the head of the animal is hidden as under a helmet, has forms so varied in the Kingdom of Fossils, that it becomes troublesome to report and determine all these variations. (....) We do not find these horns in all the animals found, nor in any which British authors havewritten about in the Philosophical Transactions; this difference, as well as several others which we have already noticed on the head shield of this animal, informs us that the Trilobite is a widespread type of animal consisting of a very large number of species and subordinate species.
One of the most important early figures in classifying trilobites was John W Salter, an Evangelical Protestant who lost his job as senior palaeontologist at the Geological Survey of Great Britain over his bitter arguments with the atheist Thomas Henry Huxley. His classification of trilobites (published several years before Origin of Species) introduced some of the orders we still use today. I'm unsure what Salter thought about Darwin's ideas; but he'd spent years classifying trilobites into different families before he ever heard them.
I find your approach to trilobites a bit odd. You have no problem with other animals sharing the same body plan and yet representing different kinds - cats and dogs are much more alike in body plan than different families of trilobites and yet you're happy classing them into different kinds. I know you deny this to be true since, in the case of dogs and cats the angle of the neck is somehow enough to denote a fundamentally different body plan; but let's note that it wasn't evolutionary scientists that first noted this fact - creationists like Georges Cuvier could easily see that cats and dogs belonged in the same order (unlike trilobites). What difference does it make if there are many kinds of trilobite?