|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total) |
| |
BodhitSLAVa | |
Total: 884,354 Year: 2,000/14,102 Month: 368/624 Week: 89/163 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Cambrian Discoveries | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
quote: It seems that there might already be work on some of these issues. A scientist had a big (1114 pages?) work published, but it seems he died just before. Is this type of thing going to be seen as "pseudo science"? (The cover seems to have Velikovsky and Darwin pictured side by side) Here is the blurb. quote: I will surely read this work some time (as the dead author was amazingly good at using primary scientific sources and journals) but does this sound screwed up at first glance? How screwed up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
quote: It is very much on topic, if you focus on the comments about a (possible archaeological scenario) "rabbit"-like creature (perhaps a remnant from some isolated island that existed only for a few million years) in the Cambrian (and with the need for a modified theory of evolution to explain it). The possibility of non-DNA genetic "information" being present, but not apparant (according to current understanding of genetics), could explain how the "Rolly Polly" crustacean has some sort of genetic expression that makes it nearly identical to a few millipedes (including the rolling ball feature). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodlouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pill_millipede Consider is the recapitulational stages of embryology and then the issue of metamorphosis. But, first Velikovsky: The "Velikovsky" part seems to be only loosely related. (All Velikovsky proposed, as far as I have read, is that "Numerous catastrophes or bursts of effective radiation must have taken place in the geo-logical past in order to change so radically the living forms on earth" which would be consistent with "The fact that the geological record shows a sudden emergence of many new forms at the beginning of each geological age" and would solve the problem that comes from "The fact that in many cases the intermediary links between present-day species are missing, as well as those between various species of the geological record, a vexing problem") Velikovsky simply suggested rapid mutational change in the DNA. End Velikovsky. The theory of Ginenthal goes beyond the standard issue of mutations as they WERE (and perhaps are) commonly understood. Ginenthal seems to be saying that there was alot of non-DNA type of genetic material that ALREADY had lots of "information". Back to embryology. Françoise Jacob and Jacques Monad found "control genes" to be an important issue to understand when they worked on bacteria. They were quoted: quote: Consider the Nobel laureate, Barbara McClintock. Evelyn Fox Keller, in A Feeling for the Organism (10th Anniversary Edition), The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock (NY 1983), said that McClintock was responsible for "turning biology into a bona fide field of science —a science like physics" On page 177, Keller wrote: quote: quote: Comfort, p. 152, says McClintock is "said to have told friends not to dismiss Velikovsky so quickly that there might be a grain of truth in his work". quote: quote: One has to wonder if there is some sort of genetic expression and control that isn't understood, and which could mask lots of potential morphological and anatomical changes (possibly happening in a single generation), which were already , in some way, present in the genetic code. Françoise Jacob and Jacques Monad said the "fundamental problem with chemical physiology and embryology to understand why tissue cells do not all express, all the time, the potentialities inherent in their genome". Embryology shows the greatly different morphological expressions present in the entire genetic load. Could a rabbit like creature have once lived on an isolated island in the Cambrian times? With hair? (It , of course, would not be a mammal.) Genetic quiescence means what? McClintock said: "I believe there is little reason to question the presence of innate systems that are able to restructure the genome. It is now necessary to learn of these systems and determine why many of them are quiescent and remains so over very long periods of time only to be triggered into action by forms of stress." "Quiescent" features? Explain what that means. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
You can keep on making jokes, but the biggest joke is the assumption, by posters in this thread, that there is some large Cambrian land-strata field that has been looked at and dug excavated.
Most (almost all) of the land has been crushed by plate techtonics. Even the bulk of the Cambrian ocean strata has been crushed and lost. I made a minor post (without much commentary to clarify) about Cambrian genetic controls possibly allowing for the creation of a morphological rabbit-like creature possible. You then complained that it was off topic. (Posters here were saying that land "plants" of any sort weren't present ANYWHERE, and other arguments that can only be described as an "argument from absence of evidence") Don't make fun of creationists when they ask about missing links, if the Cambrian situation is going to be treated, by posters here, like everything has been found that ever existed. It isn't even close to true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
My "main beef(s)" will narrow this discussion (which you said you didn't want to have anyway).
Tanypteryx said: quote: I was talking about cambrian land-strata, and emphasis on the LAND part. google search: cambriaN land-strata brings up some hits. here is just one quote: As for my LAND plant beef, there are molecular level studies avaliable in the literature. see http://www.pnas.org/content/115/10/E2274 quote: Much later in article quote: Here is wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryophyte I reject the idea that earlier periods lacked many of the things the incomplete fossil record might presently indicate. There could have been lots of evolutionary dead-end LAND islands in Cambrian times. And intelligent life, as well as plants themselves, could have colonized the islands. There could have been some interesting islands (of life) before extinctions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
Land plants did exist at this time, it seems.
quote: quote: The study shows that it is even slightly possible that today's plants have land ancestors that even pre-date the Cambrian. quote: However, there is not a single genetic analysis that places VASCULAR plants before the time just AFTER the end of the Cambrian, and the analyses seem to put the origin 30 million or so years after the Cambrian ended. But, again, this only is an analysis of the plants that have living descendants. There could have been Sea plants that colonized a certain number of Cambrian (or pre Cambrian) islands, and became "land" plants, but became extinct without leaving any descendants that survived in the fossil record. It seems to be assumed that novel evolution didn't happen twice, but the discovery of lignin in red algae raises questions, and specifically about convergent evolution. From a journal: quote: See endless journal articles when LIGNIN RED ALGAE is put into google. Such as: quote: The discovery raises questions, and helps show that previous assumptions were wrong. As for the issue of animals, dont forget that Cambrian LAND-strata is very very rare and precious. It might not be correct to assume that no evolution happened on land in Cambrians times. The is no guarantee that the most "advanced" creatures (all assumed to be watery) survived Cambrian times and left descendants. We should not assume that there were no land animals in the Cambrian times. The plant assumptions were wrong, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
quote: You said there were not any kind of Cambrian land plants, in your earlier posts. I always said that mammals (which clearly evolved in the period roughly 200 million years ago) were not the issue, but "rabbit"-like (non mammal)creatures were (slightly)possible. quote: Well, I showed a fossil discovery (in a link), back around January or February, that had a 482 million year old land plant, if I recall correctly. It was only a few million years too young to be Cambrian. It was slightly before the genetic study was published (which I never posted until now).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
Tanypteryx said:
quote: There is a larger issue here and it is a very big problem imo. Take a look at this post (and I will quote the entire thing), and tell me what you think the implication is. quote: (I appreciate the information, though it would be nice if there was a description of the total land area excavated and then the total area potentially dug/hammered into at some point ) South Africa does not the entire world make. Put ARGENTINA OLDEST LAND PLANTS into google. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ants-unearthed-Argentina.html quote: This also came in search quote: Another search brought this quote: Why do we keep assuming that everything under our nose really is (literally) everything (that is, was, and ever will be)? I detect a problem here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
Me three!
Here is one of your most recent posts. quote: Me three and all of we. Here is the relevant text from my post 9 (which came after your early "world without any land plants" post, and most certainly before any of your corrections) I said: quote: I will give you credit for one thing: you did admit that there are actual mammals that eat some of the modern-day remnants of the oldest land plants. But I really do wonder how you justify the creationist-style argument of yours that a hypothetical Cambrian animal - as a requirement for survival - MUST HAVE eaten things that a mammal from several hundred million years later would have eaten. The professional creationist sites surely must be considering your job application/resume as we speak (lol). Try another hypothesis.. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021