Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 62 of 77 (540785)
12-29-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
12-29-2009 2:52 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
542 Million to 488 Million Years Ago
The Cambrian period, part of the Paleozoic era, produced the most intense burst of evolution ever known. The Cambrian Explosion saw an incredible diversity of life emerge, including many major animal groups alive today. Among them were the chordates, to which vertebrates (animals with backbones) such as humans belong.
they dont call it the 'cambrian explosion' for nothing.
Peg, can you describe any other kind of explosion which takes 54 MILLION years?
Yes, there was a great diversity of life, but you make it sound like on a Tuesday there were 3 animals and by Friday there were 100,000,000.
Instead what was happening is that animals were developing hard body parts because, for the first time, the chemistry of the ocean allowed it. As a result there was a bit of an arms race with many different types of creatures splitting into a multitude of different sub groups over MILLIONS of years.
And what came before it?
"The earliest living organisms were microscopic bacteria, which show up in the fossil record as early as 3.4 BILLION years ago
the first multi celled animals came along much later then this
according to the same Nat Geo article
"The first multicelled animals appeared in the fossil record almost 600 MILLION years ago...these fall into three main categories. The simplest of these soft-bodied creatures were sponges....cnidarians, which included sea anemones, corals, and jellyfish...annelids, or segmented flatworms
So if there is any confusion, its because the information provided isnt consistent.
So, follow along with your own post.
For roughly 3 billion years there were single celled organisms. Those organisms diversified and began changing the chemistry of the ocean.
Over those billions of years the first multicellular creatures evolved. At first little more than 2-3 single cell creatures cooperating.
By the time we hit 600 million years ago, the multicellular (but soft bodied) creatures are living in a world where the chemistry has made it possible for them to leave behind fossil evidence.
A little time after that, the chemistry had changed enough to give us the Cambrian.
I know that these are extremely large numbers and it's hard to understand exactly how long 50 million years really is. It's a very very very very long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 2:52 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 5:16 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 67 of 77 (540805)
12-29-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Peg
12-29-2009 5:16 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
ok, so there must have been a lot of creatures developing these parts
Let me ask you why we dont see partially developed features, but rather fully formed features? If there really were lots/millions of creatures developing all sorts of new body parts, they should be readily available in the fossil record. Do we see them?
Can you define a "partial developed part" for me?
Is an antelope with a single pronged horn a partial developed moose antler?
Nuggin i think you've missed the point that the time between 3.6 Billion years and 600 Million years is also a very long time with very little evolution.
No, you've missed it. You are still putting most of your emphasis on changes in morphology.
This opinion of your implies that all single celled organisms are basically the same and that bigger animals who are morphologically different are more diverse.
That's incorrect. There is WAY more diversity between the two ends of the bacterial spectrum than between a human and a worm.
A great deal of evolution took place over that time period - for example life forms evolved the ability to use sunlight for food. That's HUGE.
from 3.6 BILLION years ago to as little as 600 Million years ago, there was bacteria living and not much else...then suddenly within 58 million years, we get a burst of all sorts of many-celled lifeforms?
how can that make sense??
Like virtually everything about evolution, you complain that it doesn't make sense because you have have misunderstood the facts.
NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is saying that it was only bacteria for 3 billion years then suddenly a bunch of fish and crabs.
Do you _HONESTLY_ believe that that's what evolution says? Do you _HONESTLY_ believe that all the educated people in the world are just absolutely retarded and have overlooked something as glaringly obvious as that?
_HONESTLY_?
Here's a timeline with some markers
-3.6 billion years ago simple single celled life
(evolution occurs allowing for greater complexity in single celled organisms until we get...)
-2.5 billion years ago photosynthesizing complex single celled life
(evolution occurs within this group and others, simple singe celled organisms give rise to eukaryotic single celled organisms)
-1.5 billion years ago - earliest evidenec of eukaryotic
(These new cells are capable of specialization and cooperation in a way that simple single cells can not, so they give rise to...)
-1 billion years ago - early multicellular life
- 800 million years ago - successful multicellular life has diversified into the first "animals"
- 600 million years ago - the ocean chemistry has changed enough to allow the formation of hard body parts and so we see more representatives of the variation preserved in the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 5:16 AM Peg has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 68 of 77 (540807)
12-29-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
12-29-2009 7:55 AM


Modulous writes:
I understand that if all of natural history as presently known was shown false, this would cause serious problems for the natural origin of life - but I do not understand how a non-natural origin for life has an impact on the natural history that follow it.
I find that hard to believe.
What a non natural origin for life would prove is that life was created.
this would imply a supernatural first cause. It would also put an end to the silly notion that all living beings decended from a primordial soup.
Peg, stop and think for a second.
Let's pretend that there was a supernatural first cause. A life spark. NOT a magic Jew Wizard creating creatures out of clay.
HOW does that change what happened AFTER that? Whether or not life arose chemically or magically, what arose has subsequently gone through a series of changes for which we have a record.
Further, no one has been claiming primordial soup in a long time - but EVEN IF WE WERE, who are you to say that the divine spark didn't cause primordial soup?
I would say that it would have to be recognized that all living things were created individually and therefore trying to find linkages to ancestors would be a thing of the embarrasing past.
WHY?! You've absolutely gone from 0 to lightspeed without passing through ANY of the other speeds.
NO ONE is talking about a Magical Jew Wizard and his magic playdough in this scenario. You can not leap from "what if there were a non-natural source of first life" to "every single thing which ever existed or ever will exist is individually created by a single Jew".
It's a ridiculous leap.
Scientists could focus more on genetics and work at important things such as disease control and how to feed the starving millions...
Without evolution sciences could not work in these fields AT ALL.
Without evolution there is no explanation for disease aside from "God hates you". The seasonal flu virus would have to have been specifically made by God with the intention of killing people. Trying to cure it would be BLASPHEME.
Further, trying to feed people would likewise require changing God's plan. If people were to starve it would be because God didn't want them to have food. We could plant any seed anywhere and have a rational expectation that if God wanted them to live, he'd make a plant grow which could survive the desert/permafrost/flooding and give them food. If he didn't, he wants them to die.
how to treat and dispose of sewage safely.
If there is bacteria and sickness in sewage it's because God INDIVIDUALLY created EACH AND EVERY ONE of those things and PUT it there with the intention of making people sick. TRying to FIX God's mistake is blaspheme.
They could spend their time working out how to extend the life of telomeres and slow the aging process, they could find a cure for the common cold or more serious ailments like Aids which is said to kill 60million people over the next 20 years.
Again. In your world God created not just AIDS but ALL of the hundreds of thousands of sub-varients of AIDS. Trying to cure it would be an afront to his "plan".
But i guess to many scientists, proving evolution is just as important as any of the above.
NOTHING you've cited is fixable EXCEPT through a biology with an understanding of evolution.
It's YOU, the Creationist, who is arguing that these things are DELIBERATELY created by God with cruel intentions. Without evolution there is LITERALLY no other explanation for things like H1N1. If children die from this "swine flu" it's because God deliberately wanted to kill them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 7:55 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 6:48 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 75 of 77 (540916)
12-30-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
12-29-2009 6:48 PM


So are you saying that virus's are living creatures? animals? Cause you know they have no cellular structure, they cannot reproduce on their own and they have no metabolism
Words have meanings Peg.
Viruses are not "animals". Nor are they "plants". Nor are they "fungus". They are viruses.
The are alive because they reproduce and can be rendered dead.
And, because they reproduce, they suffer the same reproductive problem that all life has: imperfect genetic copy.
That means mutation, and mutation means change.
However, if evolution is NOT occurring, then there can be NO mutation and therefore NO change...
UNLESS the Creator does it deliberately.
So, H1N1? God created it special just to kill the several thousand people it'll kill this season. Nice guy, huh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 6:48 PM Peg 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