Quiz and Evolutionary Biology

quote:

---

Ok Rei,

​

Dont forget the Fossil record it only suggests Micro-evolution and thus Creation.

​

Quiz

---

Oh? Then please explain where the gaps are that you think pose a significant problem:Amphibians to amnionites, transitions among reptiles, transitions from synapsid reptiles to mammals, transitions from diapsid reptiles to birds
Cenozoic overview, transitions among primates, bats, carnivores, and rodents
Lagomorphs, condylarths, cetaceans, perissodactyls, elephans, and sirenians
Artiodactyls and other mammalsIt was the fossil record itself that led to the theory of evolution. Actually, more precisely, the fossil record first led to the theory of multiple creations. However, they still couldn't reconcile it, and had to add more and more "creations" into the fossil record, and each time they did, they realized more and more that the differences between each creation were becoming less and less. Eventually, they were forced to accept that there was no sharp dividing line, only a smooth transition.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I was just about to say what Rei just said. Beat me to it. Nice post, Rei.

Well, for example, it is physically possible that humans evolved from multi-celled life placed on Earth by a divine being, and bacteria are a totally independent form of life. Whether or not you think that happened, the process would be macroevolution by one definition and would not be macroevolution by the other, and the definitions are ipso facto different.

I beg your pardon? Microscopic or near-microscopic life forms are by far the majority of all of the fossil record up until the Vendian - that's about 3,000,000,000 years' worth of fossil record. You've been terribly misinformed. Read the books Cradle of Life by J William Schopf and Life on a Young Planet by Andrew H Knoll for about 500 pages of the details.

quote:

---

Well you've managed to trap yourself again.

---

Nay, This would also state that I have trapped my self. Please explain.

quote:

---

And the definition of macro evolution under discussion :
"Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups."

​

So the definition has no requirement whatsoever to "begin with microscopic lifeforms". And that nicely illustrates a difference between the two definitions.

---

This clearly defines(describes) Evolution from Bacterium.QuizP.S. you never answered my question.
Please explain how this would work, since you are suggesting that Man evolved from something. Where would they have evolved from if they didn't evolve from bacterian (i.e single celled life forms)?[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-02-2003]

Ok Rei,

quote:

---

Oh? Then please explain where the gaps are that you think pose a significant problem:

---

I agree that the fossil record suggest a form of evolution. Once again I must point in the direction of Micro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution does suggest new species (i.e new forms of life.)This however does not support Macro-Evolution. The question would be this, if the Fossil record does reflect Mac-Evo; Then I ask where does the fossil record start, what type of life forms does it begin with? I also ask where they Micro-scopic or not?

quote:

---

It was the fossil record itself that led to the theory of evolution. Actually, more precisely, the fossil record first led to the theory of multiple creations. However, they still couldn't reconcile it, and had to add more and more "creations" into the fossil record, and each time they did, they realized more and more that the differences between each creation were becoming less and less. Eventually, they were forced to accept that there was no sharp dividing line, only a smooth transition

---

You act like you are saying something I dont already understand.Quiz

And it also covers other examples of ewolution - like the ones provided by Rei.Now are you going to answer my question ?Because YOUR question moves into different areas and I want to deal wiht your claims about the fossil record first.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-02-2003]

quote:

---

Well, for example, it is physically possible that humans evolved from multi-celled life placed on Earth by a divine being, and bacteria are a totally independent form of life. Whether or not you think that happened, the process would be macroevolution by one definition and would not be macroevolution by the other, and the definitions are ipso facto different.

---

Good post. I disagree but good post. Please show me where this information was obtained as I dont see a divine creation missing bacterian.Quiz

quote:

---

I beg your pardon? Microscopic or near-microscopic life forms are by far the majority of all of the fossil record up until the Vendian - that's about 3,000,000,000 years' worth of fossil record. You've been terribly misinformed. Read the books Cradle of Life by J William Schopf and Life on a Young Planet by Andrew H Knoll for about 500 pages of the details.

---

What about the part of the fossil record which reflects life abruptly coming into existence.Quiz

quote:

---

"What about the part of the fossil record which reflects life abruptly coming into existence."

---

What specifically do you mean?I'm guessing you mean the Cambrian explosion, but of course there are pre-cambrian fossils, and the Cambrian explosion itself was not instantaneous but took millions of years. Prior to this event are a few multicellular fossils and lots of unicellular fossils.Regardless, even if that was a sudden creation event (which is inconsistent with the fossil evidence), that doesn't negate the subsequent history of macroevolution.So, as far as I can tell you're losing on three counts: no sudden creation, a long history of gradual change following the Cambrian explosion, and simple life forms before the Cambrian.Of course, please let me know what specific evidence you're referring to, if I'm not guessing correctly.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-02-2003]

Perhaps another divine being created bacteria that are unrelated to us. But it doesn't matter.You missed the point. It doesn't matter whether you, or I, or anybody thinks my scenario happened. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely my scenario is. All that matters is that it's physically possible.It is physically possible that we evolved from a multicellular life form, let's say a jellyfish (just to have something concrete to talk about), and it's physically possible that this remote ancestor was unrelated to bacteria.So we can use this as one of many possible litmus tests of the two definitions of macroevolution. The first question is "Are the two definitions the same?"According to your "Evolution from Bacterium" definition, this scenario would not be macroevolution. According to the "large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups" definition, this would be macroevolution. So the two definitions are NOT equivalent. And it doesn't matter in the slightest how realistic my scenario is; the two definitions are NOT equivalent because they give different answers when applied to possible (albeit ridiculously unlikely) scenarios.So now we can consider which is better and more useful. That's simple. Do you think that Man evolving from a multicellular jellyfish, which happened to be unrelated to bacteria, would be macroevolution? If you do, then you should discard your definition and adopt the alternative. If you think that such evolution would not be macroevolution, thenb I submit that you think that nothing could be macroevolution.

quote:

---

I'm guessing you mean the Cambrian explosion, but of course there are pre-cambrian fossils, and the Cambrian explosion itself was not instantaneous but took millions of years. Prior to this event are a few multicellular fossils and lots of unicellular fossils.

---

I am talking about the cambrian fossils and pre-cambrian fossils. I don't know enough about these but I am coming to the "conclusion" that "evolution" both forms, have occured; BUT I won't accept this until later. For now I agree, based on the information given, that life was created. I come to this conclusion Because I wont take your word for it. I have to do the research to INSURE that your presentation and the presentation of others is Authentic. I need more then just simple webpages. I need something real, Like taking a class in BIO for example might help me. I wont remove God or Jesus as they have helped me much. But instead of saying you are right and I am wrong I am going to take the "medium ground" and say, both are possible.Quiz

As someone already asked, are you talking about the Cambrian? This was the first flowering of animals with hard body parts, so fossils in general got more abundant - but it's awfully far removed from the first life.

Nevermind.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-02-2003]

Well, it depends on what you mean when you allow the possibility that "I am right".That there are fossils before the Cambrian, and that includes both unicellular and multicellular, and the Cambrian explosion itself was not instantaneous?Please do investigate these on your own, of course, but I assure you that these claims are not in the least controversial.