Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were "securely dated" at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids[8] (of which Tiktaalik is an example) implying that animals like *****Tiktaalik were "late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms******and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates" possessing features that actually evolved around 400 million years ago.[9] ~wkikpedia
They're all (except Eryops; a salamander) extinct fish with no evidence they ever crawled about on land or ever "grew legs". Coelacanth would be in your list if it hadn't been discovered in the ocean swimming around like any other fish.
This is a falsified fossil. Only the head was found, the body belonged to different fish fossils found in the same strata. This creature is from the alligator species with its flat head profile, sharp teeth and top mounted eyes. Do people not see, are they blind? People are letting their imaginations run wild.
@ifystube Wait, let me get this straight -- you're saying that another animal died at the EXACT SAME TIME, RIGHT NEXT TO IT and it just all magically fossilized together?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah! Seriously, thanks for the laugh man.
i didn't say that. The people that found this fossil only found the head and in order to legitimize their claim they got other animal fossils from the area and joined them to the tiktaalik head to make a body. Why have they not found even a couple from the millions or billions of possible "transitional" fossils out there. It's so difficult because there are none.
@ifystube Yep it's a gigantic global conspiracy man. All scientists are just out there to fool you. Nevermind every beneficial thing science has brought us like vaccines which have doubled the lifespan likely of people in your very family, or this marvelous creation called the internet we're talking on right now. But it's just one big lie. They don't really know anything. We really don't have robots on mars either.
You're a fucking idiot. Drown yourself in the face with mace.
No, the initial discovery of Tiktaalik roseae consisted of a suite of 27 individuals from a single locality. Three specimens (NUFV 108–110) preserve skulls, pectoral girdles and fins in articulation. The individual designated as the holotype (NUFV 108) consists of skull, anocleithrum, basibranchial, coracoid, clavicle, cleithrum, ceratobranchial, entopterygoid, humerus, lepidotrichia, mandible, naris, orbit, parasphenoid, radius, supracleithrum, ulna & ulnare, along w/body scales.
The holotype (NUFV 108) is fully articulated, meaning the bones were *not* found scattered about and "joined together".
Other specimens have been found since the initial 27 individuals.
This of course turns your claim that, "they got other animal fossils from the area and joined them to the tiktaalik head to make a body", into what we call bullshit.
Similarities does not support evolution. It does prove they look similar.
Similarities has nothing to do with evolution, because it does not prove they came from a the same biological descendant. Because they look similar means they look similar, it does not mean they evolved from simpler life forms, which is impossible.
Strictly speaking, that's right, but it's the pattern formed by differences and similarities that supports evolution. All life on earth, when compared and contrasted, forms nested sets which combine into one nested 'tree of life'. This is precisely what the Theory of Evolution predicts.
It's just like with people. If a showed you a Polish child, and then asked whether his closest ancestors were European or African, which would you say, and why?
I think it's finally safe to say Tiktaalik is NOT a transitional fossil...
"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)
"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...
"In some of the prints, individual digits can be made out. That means land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. In addition, some of the tracks show an animal walking with a diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures...
"Other paleontologists are taken aback by the discovery of the tracks. 'We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,' says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'We have to RETHINK the whole thing.'"
The only thing that ever seems to evolve is the theory of evolution!
Let's take homology for example. For exampl, everyone says the similarities between a human arm and a seal flipper proves a common ancestor. But this utterly breaks down with the genetics that makes up each structure. And that's why Gavin de Beer concluded, "The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as HOPELESS."
There's this wonderful thing called the scientific method, it says that as new evidence is found the theory must be edited to fit it. With religion the facts have to conform to the theory which means it doesn't admit mistakes. It's actually pretty obvious that human and chimp hands have nearly the same structure.
And speaking of human/chimp similarities, there's a BIG problem.
"Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly" (ScienceNOW, January 13, 2010)
"researchers predicted that the Y chromosome SHOULD BE nearly identical in humans and chimpanzees, like the rest of the genome...When the team members compared the MSY sequences, they got a SURPRISE. They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has LOST LOTS of genes that are present in humans..."
Wrong. Observation does not imply direct observation. By that logic we cannot claim that electrons exist because we have never directly observed one. The big bang makes many predictions, such as CMBR, which have been observed and verified. This is an example of the the indirect evidence you scoff at. Is the theory perfect?No. Is it probable? Very. Will it ever be proven 100% true?No.But neither will any other scientific theory. (Which is good because it allows for modification with new evidence)
"BIG bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities - things that we have NEVER observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation...
Isn't the CMB thousands of times too smooth to have produced the galaxies we see today, even after billions of year?
Also, why is radiation from opposite sides of the universe so identical, especially since radiating matter that far apart could not have reached thermal equilibrium?
"It's actually pretty obvious that human and chimp hands have nearly the same structure"
And human eyes are similar to squid eyes. So what? Similarity proves nothing - it's the genetics that determine how these structures form. For example, humans and chimps have the FOXP2 gene that enables speech, but only humans have the ability to talk. Why?
Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought according to Fossil footprints found in southern poland lead to a radical rethink of the evolution of the first four-legged animals or 'tetrapods'
Until now, experts had believed that the earliest tetrapod fossils are 375 million years old
However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. Suggesting they are NOT transitional forms.
Great some fish fossils then a few speculated drawings of half fish half amphibians then some amphibian fossils.Where were the halh fish half amphibian fossils?
Stootoot, I am going to assume that you attend(ed) public school, as did I, and that you have NEVER been presented with an alternative viewpoint to evolution other than what's on YouTube... and it's not very accurate at all.
And I am not sure if you attend church, like gregrutz (who is Catholic), but do you have any views about God and the Bible? If so, I would curious to know what they are.
Evolution of life from the mud puddle soup is unproven and will remain so becasue the process was not observed. Therefore by it's very nature must be taken on faith by those who believe. Theories and drawings and animations doesn't change that. Scientists are coming to the conclusion that evolution can not explain the unexplainable gaps in the evolution model. So now they are forced to come up with other theories (guess) as to why. The answer is obvious. God is the creator
In science terms, the simplest answer tends to be the best answer. When that answer is corroborated by an outside source, it becomes the most probable answer. I didn't use the bible as primary evidence but as corroborating testimony.
"Therefore there must be a supernatural creator"
In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth....
God is a creator
".....Not even heaven or the highest heavens can contain you...."
Wiki says, "The early fossil record on fish is not very clear." And Stephen J. Gould said, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains NOTHING in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla)." Natural History, p.15, 1990
The point that you are missing is that if you pick any fossil from the fossil record it is a COMPLETE SPECIES. No fossil by it self will ever be "transitional" enough to make creationists happy. If you have two species, one evolving from the other, and you found a fossil of the first changing into the second, that middle fossil will still be a complete species. The gradual change you are talking about is indeed in the fossil record. You are just choosing to ignore it.
I don't believe in any creator - God of the Bible. But I believe in science, true logic and clear mind.
It is not impossible that creator intended to create all of this various types of animals which live today and still in research. I don't believe creator created the dinosaurs, amphibians, birds, apes, monkey, lemurs, owls, rabbits, rats.
Evolutionary theory is an assurance of the clear mind. Extravagance is a danger, baby!!
Since the theory of evolution has failed to explain where life came from, most people would agree that it is time to consider the second point of view. The obvious choice, for those who can accept it, is that life came into existence through a creator—the God of the Bible. This fact, unlike the theory of evolution, is not in conflict with the scientific evidence.
I am very excited that every day more scientists are considering the second point of view because of where the evidence leads.
Science is about evidence, not popular vote. Even if it was, 99% of the world's biologists are in support of evolution. I dare you to present a poll that shows a decline in that number.
Evolutionary biology explains the DIVERSITY of life forms. It is not supposed to explain the origin of life.
"Evolution vs. God" is a false dichotomy. As if only two explanations are allowed for each phenomenon we see in nature. And as if they are equally scientific.
Any competing concept must be testable on its own merits. Your God hypothesis is not, because "God" is never in conflict with ANY observation.
He explains everything. My car breaks down? Its God's will. Bacteria become drug resistant? It's Gods will. Green cheese is found on the Moon? God wanted it so.
But it's not SCIENCE. It's just a cop out.
If you pit naturalistic science against the Bible you commit a grave injustice against both.
The Bible is a book, written in the Bronze Age, by multiple people who have different accounts of what really happened. Furthermore, the book itself has practically been torn up and rearranged so many times throughout history, that the modern Bible is probably nothing like the original.
If anything, the Bible is the most untrustworthy source I've ever seen.
You should Google: Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links (ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009)
Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight - and the finding means it's UNLIKELY that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
The conclusions... may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs.
Dinos had first? Not according to John Ruben, OSU professor of zoology:
"This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path ALONGSIDE dinosaurs, starting that process BEFORE most dinosaur species even existed... For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That's a pretty SERIOUS PROBLEM, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dino theories."
Just answer me this. Do you agree with Professor William Provine when he said of Darwinism: "No life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life."
After all, if Darwin was right about evolution, and we randomly evolved from nothing, then Provine must be correct. Right? So what is the ultimate meaning of our lives? All seems pretty shallow to me.
"We civilised men... do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick... Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man... hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
"Darwin died 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has progressed since then."
Not according to David Raup: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasnt changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even FEWER examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time."
I love the people who claim there is no ethics in evolution exactly my point! But why then do we help the poor in Africa? After all, they are the weakest of society who can't feed or care for themselves, and according to Darwin's own theory; we should just let them die. Survival of the fittest, right?
Do you want to talk about religion and philosophy or Origin of Species?
I know a little about evolution and it says nothing about........ "No life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life."
First, does Darwin's book actually address the "origin" of species, or just how species change as a result of natural selection? Which, by the way, does not explain how one species changes into completely new species through a lengthy series of "beneficial" mutations. (Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1.)
Second, Richard Dawkins wrote in the Blind Watchmaker on page 5 that natural selection is a blind, unconscious, automated process. That sounds pretty random to me.
Natural selection is how one species changes into two species.
"through a lengthy series of "beneficial" mutations." is creationist bull shit, that is not how it works. It only need variation, proven by turning a wolf into a poodle.
evolution does not have a direction, there is no up, does not make it random.
'Random' and 'mutation' are used by misinformed creationist.
"It only need variation, proven by turning a wolf into a poodle."
Still a canine! Where do we see dogs turning into anything other than another dog? Text books always use the Peppered Moth, but that only shows a change in the light and dark population... not that the moths actually turned into a completely new species.
Stephen Gould wrote of Darwinism: "The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories REQUIRE THAT IT CREATE THE FIT AS WELL."
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, Vol. 86, June - July 1977, p. 28
Gould was a strong supporter of the Theory of Evolution. He was writing about Darwinsim, which is different from what creationist have turned it into.
Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications [i.e., mutations], my theory would absolutely break down."
The Origin of Species, p. 194 (Google Books)
Okay, so how did the heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, brain, immune system, etc. ALL come about via natural selection?
I agree that variations exist! But how does natural selection change one species into another without mutations.
Mutation provides the variation, which you agree exists. Natural selection works on the variation.
If a Giraffe would do better with a longer neck, it does not wait around for a benificial mutation, there are already animals with a longer neck that survive.
"The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available..."
Peter R. Sheldon, "Complexity Still Running," Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104
So organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. But the opposite is true. More complex organisms (i.e., humans) have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. Variations within organisms appear to be bounded.
We know that variations are limited due to Mendels laws. If evolution happened, organisms (i.e., bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the favorable changes and allow organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes.
Speaking of DNA, it cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.
Nor can DNA function without a decoder, (a system to transcribe it into messenger RNA), and without preexisting ribosomes and enzymes.
When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each organism has machinery to correct most errors. If not, the organism would become extinct.
So which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism?
Look, it's okay if you don't know how DNA started. Nobody else does either. And please let me know when you find out how the moon was formed; why some planets orbit "backwards"; why Uranus spins from top to bottom; where all the antimatter is; and how insects evolved (just to name a few).
There are thousands of unresolved "chicken or the egg" questions indicating that we don't even know everything about our own solar system. Yet, man confidently claims there is no God. Amazing!
One topic? Okay, how did the moon form? Keep in mind these findings:
"The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem; the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago." (p. 1954)
"We are presented with an unresolved mystery. All theories of lunar formation require that formation take place in the equator plane, yet models of tidal evolution do not place the Moon there." (p. 1955)
Touma & Wisdom, "Evolution of the Earth-Moon System"
Several mechanisms have been suggested for the Moon's formation. The formation of the Moon is believed to have occurred 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago.
You don't know how the moon formed, but you're 100% certain it's 4.5 billion years old? Just like you are 100% certain there is no God, right?
Again, the earth-moon system has been studied and there is a time scale problem as the lunar orbit would collapse in a little over a billion years. I see that Wiki conveniently did not include this little mathematical nugget on their page about the moon. But at least they admitted the major problems will all the theories... hard not to.
[I'm replying to your latest post to keep the conversation linear]
Even if the theory of the moons origin doesn't fit with the evidence, it doesn't mean the evidence is wrong. The evidence shows the moon is around 4.5 billion years old. The conclusions which can be drawn from the data still stand, even if the theory hasn't caught up yet.
Oh, and what does any of this have to do with evolution? What do you say about whats shown in the video above?
"What do you say about whats shown in the video above?"
From what did fish evolve in order to supposedly evolve into amphibians? Stephen Gould said, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains NOTHING in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and FISHES (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla)." Natural History, p.15, 1990
I did look it up on Wiki and they actually say about the evolution of fish: "The early fossil record on fish is not very clear." But yet, it's taught as fact that fish evolved... but there's no record of it.
It also says the same thing about insects: "The relationships of insects to other animal groups remain unclear." In other words, scientists have no idea how either evolved.
Perhaps the evidence is not clear in those specific examples, but they do know that evolution occurs in other places (such as that in the video above), with evidence to support.
They still believe that evolution is what caused insects and fish to arise as it is the only theory they have with fits all of the available data (on fish to amphibians, for example) and explains other situations (the origins of insects, for example). [Continued in another comment]
... And it is likely that they will never find a fossil record of an animal between insects and whatever came before, as insects of course leave a very small fossil record, and the time since they were alive is far too great.
So I admit, there may be little evidence for the evolution of insects and fish, but this doesn't point to a hole in the theory. It simply shows that collecting the data may be very difficult. In this case, finding no data does not necessarily make the theory false.
"...a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions. "
And creationism makes no testable predictions.
* Again, the problem with saying that "All organisms just appear" is that that is a result of the animals existing at that time leaving little (or no) fossil record. It isn't proof that they weren't there at all.
"A theory is: a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions... And creationism makes no testable predictions."
Is the Big Bang observable and testable. What about the origin of the first cell? How does anyone know what the conditions of early earth were like? And why didn't Miller use oxygen in his experiment of creating life in the lab?
"Is the Big Bang observable and testable" - Observable, yes
"The origin of the first cell" - No
"And why didn't Miller..." Because the only source of oxygen on Earth is from living things. Miller wanted to show if life could arise without oxygen as that would have been the conditions on Earth before living things.
"conditions of early earth" Not sure, maybe look at ancient rocks or assumptions about the levels of volcanic activity.
"Miller wanted to show if life could arise without oxygen as that would have been the conditions on Earth before living things."
So what protected early life from the destructive ultraviolet radition of the sun? No oxygen = no ozone = no protection from radiation. The first cells would fry.
But if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. That's the real reason Miller did not include oxygen.
I believe early species lived under the ocean in order to reduce the effect of UV radiation [see Wikipedia article on Stromatolites]. They photosynthesized and produced oxygen as a byproduct, which was later (many million of years later) used by other species in the process of respiration. The Stromatolites were the first plants, and later species which used the oxygen they produced were animals.
So life could arise without oxygen initially in the atmosphere.
She then says that "direct evidence of microbial activity is lacking..."
"We knew that the stromatolite ecosystem was dominated by photosynthetic cyanobacteria, and expected to see this reflected in a positive carbon isotopic value. However, we saw the exact OPPOSITE." Andres said... "We still don't understand how stromatolites calicify."
I noticed that Wiki does not include any references to her findings.
As for stromatolites, there was an article in ScienceDaily (Nov 2006), "Origins Of Life: New Approach Helps Expand Study Of Living Fossils."
The article says that despite high hopes for finding the origin of life in stromatolites, Dr. Miriam Andres found "that incorrect assumptions have been made in interpreting stromatolite data: phototrophs, or oxygen-producers, were actually dominated by heterotrophs, or oxygen-consumers, in their contribution to stromatolite formation."
Let's think about this for a moment. If there was no oxygen, and thereby no ozone to protect life from ultraviolet radiation, how did the ocean keep from evaporating all together?
Additionally, Wiki says the surface temperature for the moon (which has no ozone) during the lunar day averages 107C (224.6 F), and during the lunar night -153 C (-243.4 F).
Life just could not survive, let alone begin, in these extremely harsh conditions.
The initial atmosphere formed due planetary degassing, a process in which gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen were released from the interior of the Earth from volcanoes and other processes.
This would provide a degree of protection from UV and reduce the diurnal temperature fluctuations. The moon cannot support an atmosphere due to it's low gravitational strength.
hexkid: "The moon cannot support an atmosphere due to it's low gravitational strength."
Speaking of the moon, if it supposedly formed out of the earth (as nearly every theory says), then why doesn't it orbit in the earth's equatorial plane? Instead, it has a very high orbital plane.
I have asked this previously, but can't seem to find anyone with a solid answer.
The moons orbit is only 5 degrees of the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun, I'd hardly call that very high.
The moon formed from the debris resulting from a collision between the Earth and another object (small planet/asteroid) if that collision was not exactly at the equator then why would the dust be in the same plane as earth's orbit?
Salty lakes or oceans, is the distinction really important? And like I said in a previous post, UV radiation isn't necessarily dangerous for all bacteria (please look up Radioresistant bacteria).
They may know how life started you know. Look up Abiogenesis on Wikipedia to see a list of theories, one of which may be right (none have actually been confirmed to be incorrect, so its an open case at the moment).
Second, if these organisms only evolved in Doushantuo, then why are similar organisms found around the world? How did they propagate themselves across the earth? If the lake was separated from the ocean, then the organisms that evolved in Doushantuo would have disappeared when the lake disappeared.
"Salty lakes or oceans, is the distinction really important?"
Actually, yes.
The article says, "Other scientists have dismissed lakes as suitable homes for the first animals, on the grounds that such water bodies are often short-lived. Lakes typically last just a few thousand years, not long enough for life to evolve."
Salt water lakes, by definition are found close to the ocean. All it would take is a particularly violent storm to erode the barrier between the lake and the ocean for life to be able to propagate.
The interesting theory about life starting in a lake rather than the ocean is that it provides a more protective environment for life to gain a foothold. A bit like planting seed in a greenhouse before planting seedlings outside.
It's hundreds of miles from the ocean now but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was at the time that the sediments were deposited. I'll see if I can find more info about the historic sea levels/boundaries in the area.
That's a great clip which shows Ben Steins totally intellectual dishonesty.
He asks Michael Ruse a question for which he attempts to outline one theory which states that the first self-replicating molecules formed using crystals as a substrate. It's actually called the Cairns-Smith theory and although it has been popularised in many books it is NOT one of the current accepted models for abiogensis, most biologists believe that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a more likely model.
Was it also "intellectually dishonesty" when Dawkins said, "And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe."
It's all in the edit and the pieces of the conversation that they didn't show in the film. Richard Dawkins goes on to say that even if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe it would have evolved and so you still would not have an ultimate designer. The whole of Expelled is basically a long exercise of Quote Mining & other dishonesty.
You should check out Richard Dawkins side of the discussion on his site go to RichardDawkins[dot]net and search for 'Lying For Jesus'
You posted previously that the early atmosphere consisted of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and sulphur dioxide. Current theory also says hydrogen was present. But this is not the same composition Miller used. Hydrogen would have been present in small amounts, but ammonia and methane would have actually been destroyed by the suns ultraviolet light.
So what experiment uses the composition you suggest were present when life began?
The Miller-Urey experiment has been repeated by Jeffrey Bada @ Scripps Institute of Oceanography using the amosphere that we are talking about (i.e. including water, CO2 & N).
He has shown that amino acids will still form if there is also a presence of iron & carbonates. Neither of these materials are considered to be 'exotic' and would certainly have been abundant on Earth especially in a volcanic region.
As for Bada, I read his stuff in 2008, and it's still a controlled laboratory test of how things might have formed as chains of RNA. Still doesn't address the creation of amino acids as the first step of many more unlikely ones in organizing life. And there is still no explanation of how a code for building proteins could arise, let alone how chemicals organized into cells more complex than our modern technology. And no experiments show how a genome can mutate new information.
"So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario... and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist."
Note to Dawkins, you're a really bad philosopher, not a scientist!
"Stein has no talent for comedy... But his attempt to do tragedy is even worse. He visits Dachau and, when informed by the guide that lots of Jews had been killed there, he buries his face in his hands as though this is the first time he has heard of it. Obviously it was not his intention, but I thought his rotten acting was an insult to the memory of the victims."
"The sarcasm in his grating, nasal voice was palpable. Maybe this was when Ruse realised that he had been had. Certainly it was at this point that he started to show signs of exasperation, although he may still have thought that Stein was merely stupid, rather than pursuing a malevolent and clandestine agenda."
"The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really... [Stein] certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough."
Are you serious? That is one of the worst things I have ever read! I think Dawkins should have called his book, "The Dawkins Delusion" because he is so full of himself.
He starts by saying "Mathis TRICKED a number of scientists, including PZ Myers and me, into taking prominent parts in the film." Pa-lease! I thought Dawkins was so smart, but guess not if he is so easily fooled.
Doushanto is right next to the Nanling Mountains which form the southern booundary of Guizhou Province. These mountains mark the boundary between the Eurasian & Indo-Australian plates and so the region was at an ocean margin until the plates collided ~55Mya. Therefore the Salt lake WAS is a coastal region at the the appropriate time.
With regard to the Oparin-Haldane theory, it was not tested until Miller's experiment. He used methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, but deliberately removed oxygen because it destroys amino acids. There is no geological evidence that indicates oxygen wasn't present as it is produced by photolysis of water vapor - which you said was present. When hydrogen escapes earth's gravity, oxygen remains.
You yourself said that: "life MAY have evolved in salty lakes..." (caps as in original). If it didn't, and had in fact evolved in oceans then your point about them not having long enough to evolve is invalid.
"How did they propagate themselves across the earth?" - very slowly I would guess :P. I'm quite sure early lifeforms could spread around the globe given enough time (millions and millions of years)
I'm not sure what you're saying in the third post, could you please clarify?
I was just asking hexkid what he knows about "The Great Unconformity" which is major gap in the rock record between Cambrian times (550 mya) and the pre-Cambrian (anything earlier).
The internet is pretty quiet with regard to this dilemma in the geological record. There is one good site with several clear photos, but I can't seem to find much else.
I'm not sure what "The Great Uncorformity" has to do with fossils, or what point you are trying to make with it (and by the way, its not a gap in the rock record between 550mya and anything earlier, its a gap between 550mya and 1.2 billion years ago).
This phenomena is unique to( the soil around) the Grand Canyon, and is not a global pattern (this missing period is found in the geological record of other areas).
"That must be inferred from an assumed ancestor or function" - I suppose that's true, you do have to assume that what you are looking at is an ancestor of some species, rather than a completely distinct one. But when you see a long chain of fossils slowly becoming more like a present day species (see video above) the evidence is pretty conclusive.
Lastly, I have no views on God and the Bible, as I believe in neither.
And yes, I have never been taught an alternative to evolution.
"But when you see a long chain of fossils slowly becoming more like a present day species... the evidence is pretty conclusive."
The problem is, most animal phyla found in the Cambrian period still exist today.
Basically, we currently have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian period adds up to over 50 phyla. That means there are more phyla in the very beginning of animal life than exist now.
"... 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but ... Cambrian period adds up to over 50 phyla."
*So some phyla died out? Or interbred with existing phyla until they no longer existed? I don't really see what this has to do with evolution (it doesn't prove it false or true) .
Evolution occurs on a species by species basis, not in groups or phylems.
*Would insects leave much fossil record? They have no skeleton, and isn't it the petrified skeletons that usually remain (not sure on this point)
"Evolution occurs on a species by species basis, not in groups or phylems."
But if all life started as bacteria and amebas that evolved from some primordial soup (as most text books claim), then how did we get so many different diverse groups or phylum?
There are two forms of evolution. One says we evolved all the way from soup (macro), and the other says we evolve via natural selection (micro). I agree with the latter, but it does not explain the first (i.e., the origin of life).
All of your arguments for life not being able to survive seem to be based on life which we commonly experience today, not life as it may have been 4 billion years ago.
Look up Extremophiles on Wikipedia, specifically looking at Radioresistant bacteria (high resistance to UV radiation) and Hyperthermophiles (high temperature resistance). Continued...
Secondly, there was an atmosphere, of sorts. Not made from ozone, but rather ammonia, methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, which kept the temperatures below boiling. (Side note: why did you look up moon temperatures? Comparing the Earth (large planet with atmosphere) and the moon (small rock with no atmosphere) is a bit of a leap)
I don't understand exactly what your saying about the stromatolites. Are you saying that stromatolite colonies don't have a net oxygen production?
Look up Abiogenesis on Wikipedia. It lists all the theories for life's creation (there's a lot more than just the soup one). I think you find that the origin of life was determined more by chemical processes than by evolution (way too big to explain here, though (plus I don't understand it))
Can I ask you what theory of creation you support? Do you acknowledge that evolution does occur in some cases? Do you believe the origin of life is a scientific or a spiritual matter?
Oh, and one other passage is I like is Hebrews 11:1 & 3, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen [i.e., God, heaven, etc]... By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." That is Creation.
I don't believe that Jesus would reference two things that did not exist.
Second, I do believe in "microevolution." We have many different kinds of dogs - wolves to poodles - but they are all still dogs. People also come in all different shapes, colors and sizes, but they are all still humans. So I believe characteristics can change, but I don't believe species evolve into other species (i.e., molecules to primates to man).
If you believe in 'microevolution' (small changes happening over short time), why do you not believe in the next logical step, large changes over large time (evolution)?
Some of these random changes could be beneficial to the mutated animal/plant, and so it is more likely that it will survive to breeding age. This means the size of the mutant population will increase, and due to interbreeding between these mutants, a new species will arise.
If you believe in micro evolution you must believe in evolution. Evolution is just the accumulation of micro evolutions over time. So any evidence you have for micro evolution as an ongoing process (Dog types, etc) is also evidence for evolution as an ongoing process.
Also, evolution mostly occurs when the process of hereditary doesn't work. Mutations can occur during the process, resulting in offspring that are not limited by the genes of the parents (so Mendels law does not apply)
As for animals having partial organs, I have already given you an example: a mole. Some moles are blind, yet they still have eyes. Eyes are a useless organ that they still have as they are in the process of phasing it out.
That particular example (what good are partial organs) always annoys me. People always say it without checking the facts at all. Sure, if it didn't happen it would be a good point, but it does, sand it just shows the people saying it don't care about what actually happens.
Speciation is currently being seen in nature, do a search on Ring Species.
There are several; different types of mutation which can occur on a chromosome. The most common is mis-copying of one or two base-pairs which may cause the generation of an altered protein, another mutation can result in the duplication of part of the chromosome so that 2 copies of same gene are written.
This provides extra information which can also be mutated in subsequent generations.
Hexkid, in your other post you said the moon's lunar orbit was inclined 5 degrees?
Actually, the moon's orbital is inclined 18.5 - 28.5 degrees to the earth's equator (see lunar "declination" & "standstill" on Wiki moon).
Re: the impact theory, "Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near the earth's equatorial plane."
Ward & Canup, "Origin of the Moon's Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions," Nature, 2000
AA32m7io1 - The declination is NOT the variance of the moons orbit from the ecliptic plane. This is only the observed angle of the moon in the sky from Earth's equator and is not the same thing at all since the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted.
The moon's orbit is between 5.00 & 5.3 degrees see Orbit of the Moon wiki. This does not seem to contradict anything in Ward & Canup's paper.
I have just read back & I mis-read your initial question, sorry for the confusion.
I still think that Ward & Canup's paper answers you own question about the angle of orbit. Given a sufficient period of time the moon will be gravitationally attracted to the ecliptic plane and so it's current orbit will not have the same inclination as the one that it was formed in.
Jesus also validates the account of Noah and the flood in Matthew 24:37 - 39, "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."
Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were "securely dated" at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids[8] (of which Tiktaalik is an example) implying that animals like *****Tiktaalik were "late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms******and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates" possessing features that actually evolved around 400 million years ago.[9] ~wkikpedia
FAIL!!
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
Which way you going- fish growing legs and turning into man or man losing his legs and becoming a snake.? All it takes a wild imagination.
jojojosmart 6 months ago
@jojojosmart A wild imagination? You mean a lot of time. A wild imagination is for the primitve tribalistic goat herders that wrote the bible mate :)
01101100d 6 months ago
They're all (except Eryops; a salamander) extinct fish with no evidence they ever crawled about on land or ever "grew legs". Coelacanth would be in your list if it hadn't been discovered in the ocean swimming around like any other fish.
jonstfrancis 7 months ago
@jonstfrancis --Good point the whole clip reminds me of the "Nebraska Man" incident.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
very good...now go much further...search: the dawn of intelligence by kerry craig walker
superwhuffo1 1 year ago
God created them.
eddiedko 1 year ago
This is a falsified fossil. Only the head was found, the body belonged to different fish fossils found in the same strata. This creature is from the alligator species with its flat head profile, sharp teeth and top mounted eyes. Do people not see, are they blind? People are letting their imaginations run wild.
ifystube 1 year ago
@ifystube Wait, let me get this straight -- you're saying that another animal died at the EXACT SAME TIME, RIGHT NEXT TO IT and it just all magically fossilized together?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah! Seriously, thanks for the laugh man.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion
i didn't say that
ifystube 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion
i didn't say that. The people that found this fossil only found the head and in order to legitimize their claim they got other animal fossils from the area and joined them to the tiktaalik head to make a body. Why have they not found even a couple from the millions or billions of possible "transitional" fossils out there. It's so difficult because there are none.
ifystube 1 year ago
@ifystube Yep it's a gigantic global conspiracy man. All scientists are just out there to fool you. Nevermind every beneficial thing science has brought us like vaccines which have doubled the lifespan likely of people in your very family, or this marvelous creation called the internet we're talking on right now. But it's just one big lie. They don't really know anything. We really don't have robots on mars either.
You're a fucking idiot. Drown yourself in the face with mace.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@ifystube
No, the initial discovery of Tiktaalik roseae consisted of a suite of 27 individuals from a single locality. Three specimens (NUFV 108–110) preserve skulls, pectoral girdles and fins in articulation. The individual designated as the holotype (NUFV 108) consists of skull, anocleithrum, basibranchial, coracoid, clavicle, cleithrum, ceratobranchial, entopterygoid, humerus, lepidotrichia, mandible, naris, orbit, parasphenoid, radius, supracleithrum, ulna & ulnare, along w/body scales.
TheHatefulDead 1 year ago
The holotype (NUFV 108) is fully articulated, meaning the bones were *not* found scattered about and "joined together".
Other specimens have been found since the initial 27 individuals.
This of course turns your claim that, "they got other animal fossils from the area and joined them to the tiktaalik head to make a body", into what we call bullshit.
So yeah, go drown yourself in the face with mace.
TheHatefulDead 1 year ago
@ifystube People are letting their imaginations run wild? Yeah they did that with the bible and the quoran
fablesergio 1 year ago
@ifystube Alligators don't have gills or finned limbs and tails...
Soupthemighty 1 year ago
@Soupthemighty --Good point, but I think it might be lost on the maker of the clip.
MrOphachew 5 months ago
nice religion
freeway001 1 year ago
nice theory
Giflar 1 year ago
Similarities does not support evolution. It does prove they look similar.
Similarities has nothing to do with evolution, because it does not prove they came from a the same biological descendant. Because they look similar means they look similar, it does not mean they evolved from simpler life forms, which is impossible.
TheRalph09 1 year ago
Strictly speaking, that's right, but it's the pattern formed by differences and similarities that supports evolution. All life on earth, when compared and contrasted, forms nested sets which combine into one nested 'tree of life'. This is precisely what the Theory of Evolution predicts.
It's just like with people. If a showed you a Polish child, and then asked whether his closest ancestors were European or African, which would you say, and why?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
1 of 3
I think it's finally safe to say Tiktaalik is NOT a transitional fossil...
"Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark" (ScienceNOW, January 6, 2010)
"Researchers have uncovered the earliest evidence of four-legged animals. Footprints and tracks preserved in the mud of an abandoned quarry in southeastern Poland date back 395 million years, UPENDING accepted thinking about when and where land animals first emerged...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 3
"In some of the prints, individual digits can be made out. That means land animals already had feet 9 million years BEFORE the finlike structures of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys. In addition, some of the tracks show an animal walking with a diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
3 of 3
"Other paleontologists are taken aback by the discovery of the tracks. 'We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,' says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 'We have to RETHINK the whole thing.'"
Oops!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The current theory is that legs evolved before lungs in animals. The first tetrapods were most likely marsh-dwelling fish.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
@Phyerbyrd
"The current theory is that..."
The only thing that ever seems to evolve is the theory of evolution!
Let's take homology for example. For exampl, everyone says the similarities between a human arm and a seal flipper proves a common ancestor. But this utterly breaks down with the genetics that makes up each structure. And that's why Gavin de Beer concluded, "The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as HOPELESS."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
There's this wonderful thing called the scientific method, it says that as new evidence is found the theory must be edited to fit it. With religion the facts have to conform to the theory which means it doesn't admit mistakes. It's actually pretty obvious that human and chimp hands have nearly the same structure.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
@Phyerbyrd 3 of 3
And speaking of human/chimp similarities, there's a BIG problem.
"Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly" (ScienceNOW, January 13, 2010)
"researchers predicted that the Y chromosome SHOULD BE nearly identical in humans and chimpanzees, like the rest of the genome...When the team members compared the MSY sequences, they got a SURPRISE. They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has LOST LOTS of genes that are present in humans..."
Not good!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Comment removed
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
@Phyerbyrd 1 of 3
"There's this wonderful thing called the scientific method"
In which step two - observation - is completely ignored when it comes to the Big Bang (and Creation).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Wrong. Observation does not imply direct observation. By that logic we cannot claim that electrons exist because we have never directly observed one. The big bang makes many predictions, such as CMBR, which have been observed and verified. This is an example of the the indirect evidence you scoff at. Is the theory perfect?No. Is it probable? Very. Will it ever be proven 100% true?No.But neither will any other scientific theory. (Which is good because it allows for modification with new evidence)
Firewalker239 2 years ago
@Firewalker239 3 of 3
"...What's more, the big bang theory can boast of NO quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation."
"Bucking the Big Bang," New Scientist, May 22, 2004
BTW - This article has been signed by 374 scientists. See the list at (3w) cosmologystatement org
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
@Firewalker239 2 of 3
"BIG bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities - things that we have NEVER observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
@Firewalker239 1 of 3
"CMBR, which have been observed and verified."
Isn't the CMB thousands of times too smooth to have produced the galaxies we see today, even after billions of year?
Also, why is radiation from opposite sides of the universe so identical, especially since radiating matter that far apart could not have reached thermal equilibrium?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
@Phyerbyrd 2 of 3
"It's actually pretty obvious that human and chimp hands have nearly the same structure"
And human eyes are similar to squid eyes. So what? Similarity proves nothing - it's the genetics that determine how these structures form. For example, humans and chimps have the FOXP2 gene that enables speech, but only humans have the ability to talk. Why?
What is "analogy" and "convergent evolution"?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought according to Fossil footprints found in southern poland lead to a radical rethink of the evolution of the first four-legged animals or 'tetrapods'
Until now, experts had believed that the earliest tetrapod fossils are 375 million years old
However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. Suggesting they are NOT transitional forms.
Professor Per Ahlberg and Jenny Clack
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
gay music
DarthSkater6 2 years ago
Great some fish fossils then a few speculated drawings of half fish half amphibians then some amphibian fossils.Where were the halh fish half amphibian fossils?
noddyguitar 2 years ago
"Where were the halh fish half amphibian fossils?"
0:34 2:28 2:46 3:37 4:12
All over the video. Any other questions?
Cephalochordata 2 years ago
Stootoot, I am going to assume that you attend(ed) public school, as did I, and that you have NEVER been presented with an alternative viewpoint to evolution other than what's on YouTube... and it's not very accurate at all.
And I am not sure if you attend church, like gregrutz (who is Catholic), but do you have any views about God and the Bible? If so, I would curious to know what they are.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Evolution rules!
bombarderoazul 2 years ago
Evolution of life from the mud puddle soup is unproven and will remain so becasue the process was not observed. Therefore by it's very nature must be taken on faith by those who believe. Theories and drawings and animations doesn't change that. Scientists are coming to the conclusion that evolution can not explain the unexplainable gaps in the evolution model. So now they are forced to come up with other theories (guess) as to why. The answer is obvious. God is the creator
L&GB
praze4life 2 years ago
In science terms, the simplest answer tends to be the best answer. When that answer is corroborated by an outside source, it becomes the most probable answer. I didn't use the bible as primary evidence but as corroborating testimony.
"Therefore there must be a supernatural creator"
In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth....
God is a creator
".....Not even heaven or the highest heavens can contain you...."
God is supernatural
God is the supernatural Creator
praze4life 2 years ago
Reduce the universe to the smallest particle of matter, a dot *
matter can not come from nothing
Therefore matter came from something
matter can not create it self
therefore matter must be created and is it's own evidence for being created.
The creation of matter must then come from outside the natural realm of the created matter.
Therefore there is a supernatural creator.
praze4life 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So how did fish evolve in the first place?
Wiki says, "The early fossil record on fish is not very clear." And Stephen J. Gould said, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains NOTHING in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla)." Natural History, p.15, 1990
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
That is why He has given us His Holy Spirit to lead and guide us. We can know His truth by discernment. That is the beauty of knowing Him personally.
praze4life 2 years ago
His holy spirit........
What does that have to do with transitional fossils?
gregrutz 2 years ago
i am still waiting on a species to species transitional fossil. which apparently doesn't exist to date...even with the millions of fossils found.
hotelroomsmoker 2 years ago
They are all transitional fossils, dummy.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Watch the video,
The point that you are missing is that if you pick any fossil from the fossil record it is a COMPLETE SPECIES. No fossil by it self will ever be "transitional" enough to make creationists happy. If you have two species, one evolving from the other, and you found a fossil of the first changing into the second, that middle fossil will still be a complete species. The gradual change you are talking about is indeed in the fossil record. You are just choosing to ignore it.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't believe in any creator - God of the Bible. But I believe in science, true logic and clear mind.
It is not impossible that creator intended to create all of this various types of animals which live today and still in research. I don't believe creator created the dinosaurs, amphibians, birds, apes, monkey, lemurs, owls, rabbits, rats.
Evolutionary theory is an assurance of the clear mind. Extravagance is a danger, baby!!
Yotta1983 2 years ago
Since the theory of evolution has failed to explain where life came from, most people would agree that it is time to consider the second point of view. The obvious choice, for those who can accept it, is that life came into existence through a creator—the God of the Bible. This fact, unlike the theory of evolution, is not in conflict with the scientific evidence.
I am very excited that every day more scientists are considering the second point of view because of where the evidence leads.
praze4life 2 years ago
So much BS, I hardly know where to start...
Science is about evidence, not popular vote. Even if it was, 99% of the world's biologists are in support of evolution. I dare you to present a poll that shows a decline in that number.
Evolutionary biology explains the DIVERSITY of life forms. It is not supposed to explain the origin of life.
"Evolution vs. God" is a false dichotomy. As if only two explanations are allowed for each phenomenon we see in nature. And as if they are equally scientific.
Cephalochordata 2 years ago
Any competing concept must be testable on its own merits. Your God hypothesis is not, because "God" is never in conflict with ANY observation.
He explains everything. My car breaks down? Its God's will. Bacteria become drug resistant? It's Gods will. Green cheese is found on the Moon? God wanted it so.
But it's not SCIENCE. It's just a cop out.
If you pit naturalistic science against the Bible you commit a grave injustice against both.
Cephalochordata 2 years ago
Have you ever considered that possibly god created life, and then it evolved? Your a moron.
MNICY 2 years ago
Yes, I have considered it and am convinced God created life. I am also convinced God sent his only Son to us so that we could have life too.
L&GB
praze4life 2 years ago
The Bible is a book, written in the Bronze Age, by multiple people who have different accounts of what really happened. Furthermore, the book itself has practically been torn up and rearranged so many times throughout history, that the modern Bible is probably nothing like the original.
If anything, the Bible is the most untrustworthy source I've ever seen.
XXL2oo 2 years ago 2
Why?
praze4life 2 years ago
Funny, the Smithsonian holds it as the most accurate ancient record in existance.
Fuck plato i guess.
hotelroomsmoker 2 years ago
Comment removed
Yotta1983 2 years ago
Comment removed
Yotta1983 2 years ago
The theory of evolution does not conflict with the evidence, unlike the flood story and the creation story.
The evidence keeps getting stronger, evolution is proven.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You should Google: Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links (ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009)
Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight - and the finding means it's UNLIKELY that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
The conclusions... may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Could be, they are findin more evidence all the time.
All the things that birds have:
hollow bones
3 toes
feathres
oblong eggs
Dinosaurs had first.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Dinos had first? Not according to John Ruben, OSU professor of zoology:
"This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path ALONGSIDE dinosaurs, starting that process BEFORE most dinosaur species even existed... For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That's a pretty SERIOUS PROBLEM, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dino theories."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
You could be right.
Have you watched.....
The Dinosaur Feather Mystery
gregrutz 2 years ago
Just answer me this. Do you agree with Professor William Provine when he said of Darwinism: "No life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life."
After all, if Darwin was right about evolution, and we randomly evolved from nothing, then Provine must be correct. Right? So what is the ultimate meaning of our lives? All seems pretty shallow to me.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
No, that's a lame analogy. It's like saying "Do you like peanut butter??? Then of course the sky is blue"
Ethics has NOTHING to do with evolution, (and obviously not with most religions either LOL) !
If the only reason you're a good person, is because you're afraid of being punished by God, then it's a real sorry statement on your moral character!
johnedwards1968 2 years ago
(2 of 2)
"We civilised men... do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick... Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man... hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
Darwin, The Descent of Man"
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Darwin died 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has progressed since then.
gregrutz 2 years ago
"Darwin died 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has progressed since then."
Not according to David Raup: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasnt changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even FEWER examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
we have even FEWER examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time."
What happened, did they lose some!?!
Watch the video you are spamming, they are all trasitional fossis.
gregrutz 2 years ago
(1 of 2)
"Ethics has NOTHING to do with evolution"
I love the people who claim there is no ethics in evolution exactly my point! But why then do we help the poor in Africa? After all, they are the weakest of society who can't feed or care for themselves, and according to Darwin's own theory; we should just let them die. Survival of the fittest, right?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
How does "the history of how we got here" dictate ethics?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Is Darwinism anything like evolution?
Do you want to talk about religion and philosophy or Origin of Species?
I know a little about evolution and it says nothing about........ "No life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life."
gregrutz 2 years ago
And evolution does not state "we randomly evolved from nothing"
Men have been asking the ultimate meaning of life ever since they could talk, can't help you on that one.
gregrutz 2 years ago
First, does Darwin's book actually address the "origin" of species, or just how species change as a result of natural selection? Which, by the way, does not explain how one species changes into completely new species through a lengthy series of "beneficial" mutations. (Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1.)
Second, Richard Dawkins wrote in the Blind Watchmaker on page 5 that natural selection is a blind, unconscious, automated process. That sounds pretty random to me.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Natural selection is how one species changes into two species.
"through a lengthy series of "beneficial" mutations." is creationist bull shit, that is not how it works. It only need variation, proven by turning a wolf into a poodle.
evolution does not have a direction, there is no up, does not make it random.
'Random' and 'mutation' are used by misinformed creationist.
gregrutz 2 years ago
"It only need variation, proven by turning a wolf into a poodle."
Still a canine! Where do we see dogs turning into anything other than another dog? Text books always use the Peppered Moth, but that only shows a change in the light and dark population... not that the moths actually turned into a completely new species.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Variation exists, evolution is change, it does not need a benificeal mutation for natrual selection to change things.
gregrutz 2 years ago
(3 of 3)
Stephen Gould wrote of Darwinism: "The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories REQUIRE THAT IT CREATE THE FIT AS WELL."
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, Vol. 86, June - July 1977, p. 28
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Gould was a strong supporter of the Theory of Evolution. He was writing about Darwinsim, which is different from what creationist have turned it into.
gregrutz 2 years ago
(2 of 3)
Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications [i.e., mutations], my theory would absolutely break down."
The Origin of Species, p. 194 (Google Books)
Okay, so how did the heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, brain, immune system, etc. ALL come about via natural selection?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
But Darwins theory did not break down.
Just because you don't understand evolution, does not mean it didn't happer.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Explain
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Darwin didn't invent evolution, he came up with a theory as to how it happened.
His ideas (Darwinism) have changed as we discovered things like genetics.
There are other thing happening besides Natural Selection.
gregrutz 2 years ago
(1 of 3)
"Variation exists, evolution is change, it does not need a benificeal mutation for natrual selection to change things."
I agree that variations exist! But how does natural selection change one species into another without mutations?
If, according to Thomas Huxley, birds evolved from dinosaurs, then wouldn't the reptile's leg need to mutate into the bird's wing?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I agree that variations exist! But how does natural selection change one species into another without mutations.
Mutation provides the variation, which you agree exists. Natural selection works on the variation.
If a Giraffe would do better with a longer neck, it does not wait around for a benificial mutation, there are already animals with a longer neck that survive.
gregrutz 2 years ago
(3 of 3)
"The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available..."
Peter R. Sheldon, "Complexity Still Running," Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
"remains somewhat puzzling"
I don't understand, God must have done it.
Same old creationist BS.
Read a science book, Nature is not peer reviewed.
gregrutz 2 years ago
(2 of 2)
So organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. But the opposite is true. More complex organisms (i.e., humans) have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. Variations within organisms appear to be bounded.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
(1 of 2)
We know that variations are limited due to Mendels laws. If evolution happened, organisms (i.e., bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the favorable changes and allow organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
We know that variations are limited due to Mendels laws"
Don't you mean mutations. You don't seem to know the difference between DNA mutations and variation in species.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Mutation happens to DNA.
Try getting you facts from a science book, not from a creationist site which distorts the facts.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Speaking of DNA, it cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.
Nor can DNA function without a decoder, (a system to transcribe it into messenger RNA), and without preexisting ribosomes and enzymes.
When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each organism has machinery to correct most errors. If not, the organism would become extinct.
So which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The old 'which came first, the chicken or the egg', is that the best you can do?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Look, it's okay if you don't know how DNA started. Nobody else does either. And please let me know when you find out how the moon was formed; why some planets orbit "backwards"; why Uranus spins from top to bottom; where all the antimatter is; and how insects evolved (just to name a few).
There are thousands of unresolved "chicken or the egg" questions indicating that we don't even know everything about our own solar system. Yet, man confidently claims there is no God. Amazing!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Who said there is no God?
Now you are talking about the moon?
Tell me why bible packers can't stick to one subject? Afraid they will be proven wrong?
gregrutz 2 years ago
One topic? Okay, how did the moon form? Keep in mind these findings:
"The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem; the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago." (p. 1954)
"We are presented with an unresolved mystery. All theories of lunar formation require that formation take place in the equator plane, yet models of tidal evolution do not place the Moon there." (p. 1955)
Touma & Wisdom, "Evolution of the Earth-Moon System"
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Several mechanisms have been suggested for the Moon's formation. The formation of the Moon is believed to have occurred 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago.
There are several hypothesis.......
Fission hypothesis
Capture hypothesis
Co-formation hypothesis
Giant Impact hypothesis
The last one being the prevailing one.
gregrutz 2 years ago
"There are several hypothesis"
So which one do you believe it is?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I don't care where the moon came from, it's been there 4.5 billion years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You don't know how the moon formed, but you're 100% certain it's 4.5 billion years old? Just like you are 100% certain there is no God, right?
Again, the earth-moon system has been studied and there is a time scale problem as the lunar orbit would collapse in a little over a billion years. I see that Wiki conveniently did not include this little mathematical nugget on their page about the moon. But at least they admitted the major problems will all the theories... hard not to.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
They don't know how the moon formed, so what? They have rocks from the moon and have dated them.
No one but you thinks there is a 'time scale problem'.
And who said anything about no God?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Then I take it you believe there is a God?
Why or why not?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
[I'm replying to your latest post to keep the conversation linear]
Even if the theory of the moons origin doesn't fit with the evidence, it doesn't mean the evidence is wrong. The evidence shows the moon is around 4.5 billion years old. The conclusions which can be drawn from the data still stand, even if the theory hasn't caught up yet.
Oh, and what does any of this have to do with evolution? What do you say about whats shown in the video above?
Stootoot 2 years ago
"What do you say about whats shown in the video above?"
From what did fish evolve in order to supposedly evolve into amphibians? Stephen Gould said, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains NOTHING in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and FISHES (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla)." Natural History, p.15, 1990
So what is the evolutionary line of fish?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Did you watch the video?
gregrutz 2 years ago
If you want a serious, informed and well written answer to your question it definitely would not be best to ask me (I'm no evolutionary biologist).
Try look it up on Wikipedia (who takes great care in being factual and unbiased) or some such website.
I really wish I could answer, but I think I would just end up saying something wrong.
Stootoot 2 years ago
I did look it up on Wiki and they actually say about the evolution of fish: "The early fossil record on fish is not very clear." But yet, it's taught as fact that fish evolved... but there's no record of it.
It also says the same thing about insects: "The relationships of insects to other animal groups remain unclear." In other words, scientists have no idea how either evolved.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Perhaps the evidence is not clear in those specific examples, but they do know that evolution occurs in other places (such as that in the video above), with evidence to support.
They still believe that evolution is what caused insects and fish to arise as it is the only theory they have with fits all of the available data (on fish to amphibians, for example) and explains other situations (the origins of insects, for example). [Continued in another comment]
Stootoot 2 years ago
... And it is likely that they will never find a fossil record of an animal between insects and whatever came before, as insects of course leave a very small fossil record, and the time since they were alive is far too great.
So I admit, there may be little evidence for the evolution of insects and fish, but this doesn't point to a hole in the theory. It simply shows that collecting the data may be very difficult. In this case, finding no data does not necessarily make the theory false.
Stootoot 2 years ago
(2 of 2)
"finding no data does not necessarily make the theory false."
So then how do major gaps in the fossil record prove evolution as fact?
Also, why has every fossil ever found (billions of them!) appear fully formed with no partial intestines, or wings, etc?
And as for insects being too small, single-cell organisms have been found in pre-Cambrian strata.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
* Creationism is not a theory. A theory is:
"...a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions. "
And creationism makes no testable predictions.
* Again, the problem with saying that "All organisms just appear" is that that is a result of the animals existing at that time leaving little (or no) fossil record. It isn't proof that they weren't there at all.
[Continued...]
Stootoot 2 years ago
"A theory is: a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions... And creationism makes no testable predictions."
Is the Big Bang observable and testable. What about the origin of the first cell? How does anyone know what the conditions of early earth were like? And why didn't Miller use oxygen in his experiment of creating life in the lab?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
"Is the Big Bang observable and testable" - Observable, yes
"The origin of the first cell" - No
"And why didn't Miller..." Because the only source of oxygen on Earth is from living things. Miller wanted to show if life could arise without oxygen as that would have been the conditions on Earth before living things.
"conditions of early earth" Not sure, maybe look at ancient rocks or assumptions about the levels of volcanic activity.
[Continued]
Stootoot 2 years ago
"Miller wanted to show if life could arise without oxygen as that would have been the conditions on Earth before living things."
So what protected early life from the destructive ultraviolet radition of the sun? No oxygen = no ozone = no protection from radiation. The first cells would fry.
But if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. That's the real reason Miller did not include oxygen.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I believe early species lived under the ocean in order to reduce the effect of UV radiation [see Wikipedia article on Stromatolites]. They photosynthesized and produced oxygen as a byproduct, which was later (many million of years later) used by other species in the process of respiration. The Stromatolites were the first plants, and later species which used the oxygen they produced were animals.
So life could arise without oxygen initially in the atmosphere.
[Continued]
Stootoot 2 years ago
3 of 3
She then says that "direct evidence of microbial activity is lacking..."
"We knew that the stromatolite ecosystem was dominated by photosynthetic cyanobacteria, and expected to see this reflected in a positive carbon isotopic value. However, we saw the exact OPPOSITE." Andres said... "We still don't understand how stromatolites calicify."
I noticed that Wiki does not include any references to her findings.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 3
As for stromatolites, there was an article in ScienceDaily (Nov 2006), "Origins Of Life: New Approach Helps Expand Study Of Living Fossils."
The article says that despite high hopes for finding the origin of life in stromatolites, Dr. Miriam Andres found "that incorrect assumptions have been made in interpreting stromatolite data: phototrophs, or oxygen-producers, were actually dominated by heterotrophs, or oxygen-consumers, in their contribution to stromatolite formation."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 3
Let's think about this for a moment. If there was no oxygen, and thereby no ozone to protect life from ultraviolet radiation, how did the ocean keep from evaporating all together?
Additionally, Wiki says the surface temperature for the moon (which has no ozone) during the lunar day averages 107C (224.6 F), and during the lunar night -153 C (-243.4 F).
Life just could not survive, let alone begin, in these extremely harsh conditions.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The initial atmosphere formed due planetary degassing, a process in which gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen were released from the interior of the Earth from volcanoes and other processes.
This would provide a degree of protection from UV and reduce the diurnal temperature fluctuations. The moon cannot support an atmosphere due to it's low gravitational strength.
hexkid 2 years ago
Comment removed
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
hexkid: "The moon cannot support an atmosphere due to it's low gravitational strength."
Speaking of the moon, if it supposedly formed out of the earth (as nearly every theory says), then why doesn't it orbit in the earth's equatorial plane? Instead, it has a very high orbital plane.
I have asked this previously, but can't seem to find anyone with a solid answer.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The moons orbit is only 5 degrees of the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun, I'd hardly call that very high.
The moon formed from the debris resulting from a collision between the Earth and another object (small planet/asteroid) if that collision was not exactly at the equator then why would the dust be in the same plane as earth's orbit?
hexkid 2 years ago
Shootoot said: "I believe early species lived under the ocean in order to reduce the effect of UV radiation."
What do you think about the new article in National Geographic: "First Animals Evolved in Lakes, Not Oceans, Study Hints" (July 28, 2009)
"Earth's first animals MAY have evolved in salty lakes, not oceans, a new study suggests."
Sounds like scientists still don't know how life started, but sure glad they know exactly how evolution works.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Salty lakes or oceans, is the distinction really important? And like I said in a previous post, UV radiation isn't necessarily dangerous for all bacteria (please look up Radioresistant bacteria).
They may know how life started you know. Look up Abiogenesis on Wikipedia to see a list of theories, one of which may be right (none have actually been confirmed to be incorrect, so its an open case at the moment).
Stootoot 2 years ago
2 of 2
Second, if these organisms only evolved in Doushantuo, then why are similar organisms found around the world? How did they propagate themselves across the earth? If the lake was separated from the ocean, then the organisms that evolved in Doushantuo would have disappeared when the lake disappeared.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 2
"Salty lakes or oceans, is the distinction really important?"
Actually, yes.
The article says, "Other scientists have dismissed lakes as suitable homes for the first animals, on the grounds that such water bodies are often short-lived. Lakes typically last just a few thousand years, not long enough for life to evolve."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
You are quote mining !!!
The very next line in the National Geographic article states:
"The lake at Doushantuo, however, lasted for tens of millions of years, and its longevity may have helped animal life gain a foothold."
hexkid 2 years ago
"MAY have helped animal life gain a foothold" but not for certain.
What about my other question of how these organisms propagated themselves across the world if they were confinded to this lake?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Salt water lakes, by definition are found close to the ocean. All it would take is a particularly violent storm to erode the barrier between the lake and the ocean for life to be able to propagate.
The interesting theory about life starting in a lake rather than the ocean is that it provides a more protective environment for life to gain a foothold. A bit like planting seed in a greenhouse before planting seedlings outside.
hexkid 2 years ago
"Salt water lakes, by definition are found close to the ocean."
The problem is, Doushantuo is in the Guizhou Province. (See Wiki for a map) The province is hundreds of miles away from the ocean.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
It's hundreds of miles from the ocean now but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was at the time that the sediments were deposited. I'll see if I can find more info about the historic sea levels/boundaries in the area.
hexkid 2 years ago
Maybe this explains the true origins of life:
(from 1:36 - 2:51) watch?v=HI76VUiJ7BQ
Crystals!!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
That's a great clip which shows Ben Steins totally intellectual dishonesty.
He asks Michael Ruse a question for which he attempts to outline one theory which states that the first self-replicating molecules formed using crystals as a substrate. It's actually called the Cairns-Smith theory and although it has been popularised in many books it is NOT one of the current accepted models for abiogensis, most biologists believe that the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a more likely model.
hexkid 2 years ago
Was it also "intellectually dishonesty" when Dawkins said, "And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe."
watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk (3:20 - 4:45)
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
It's all in the edit and the pieces of the conversation that they didn't show in the film. Richard Dawkins goes on to say that even if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe it would have evolved and so you still would not have an ultimate designer. The whole of Expelled is basically a long exercise of Quote Mining & other dishonesty.
You should check out Richard Dawkins side of the discussion on his site go to RichardDawkins[dot]net and search for 'Lying For Jesus'
hexkid 2 years ago
2 of 2
You posted previously that the early atmosphere consisted of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and sulphur dioxide. Current theory also says hydrogen was present. But this is not the same composition Miller used. Hydrogen would have been present in small amounts, but ammonia and methane would have actually been destroyed by the suns ultraviolet light.
So what experiment uses the composition you suggest were present when life began?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
The Miller-Urey experiment has been repeated by Jeffrey Bada @ Scripps Institute of Oceanography using the amosphere that we are talking about (i.e. including water, CO2 & N).
He has shown that amino acids will still form if there is also a presence of iron & carbonates. Neither of these materials are considered to be 'exotic' and would certainly have been abundant on Earth especially in a volcanic region.
hexkid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6 of 6
As for Bada, I read his stuff in 2008, and it's still a controlled laboratory test of how things might have formed as chains of RNA. Still doesn't address the creation of amino acids as the first step of many more unlikely ones in organizing life. And there is still no explanation of how a code for building proteins could arise, let alone how chemicals organized into cells more complex than our modern technology. And no experiments show how a genome can mutate new information.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5 of 6
"So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario... and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist."
Note to Dawkins, you're a really bad philosopher, not a scientist!
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
4 of 6
"Stein has no talent for comedy... But his attempt to do tragedy is even worse. He visits Dachau and, when informed by the guide that lots of Jews had been killed there, he buries his face in his hands as though this is the first time he has heard of it. Obviously it was not his intention, but I thought his rotten acting was an insult to the memory of the victims."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
3 of 6
"The sarcasm in his grating, nasal voice was palpable. Maybe this was when Ruse realised that he had been had. Certainly it was at this point that he started to show signs of exasperation, although he may still have thought that Stein was merely stupid, rather than pursuing a malevolent and clandestine agenda."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 6
Dawkins is like the haters on YT:
"The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really... [Stein] certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
1 of 6
Are you serious? That is one of the worst things I have ever read! I think Dawkins should have called his book, "The Dawkins Delusion" because he is so full of himself.
He starts by saying "Mathis TRICKED a number of scientists, including PZ Myers and me, into taking prominent parts in the film." Pa-lease! I thought Dawkins was so smart, but guess not if he is so easily fooled.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Doushanto is right next to the Nanling Mountains which form the southern booundary of Guizhou Province. These mountains mark the boundary between the Eurasian & Indo-Australian plates and so the region was at an ocean margin until the plates collided ~55Mya. Therefore the Salt lake WAS is a coastal region at the the appropriate time.
hexkid 2 years ago
1 of 2
With regard to the Oparin-Haldane theory, it was not tested until Miller's experiment. He used methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, but deliberately removed oxygen because it destroys amino acids. There is no geological evidence that indicates oxygen wasn't present as it is produced by photolysis of water vapor - which you said was present. When hydrogen escapes earth's gravity, oxygen remains.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
You yourself said that: "life MAY have evolved in salty lakes..." (caps as in original). If it didn't, and had in fact evolved in oceans then your point about them not having long enough to evolve is invalid.
"How did they propagate themselves across the earth?" - very slowly I would guess :P. I'm quite sure early lifeforms could spread around the globe given enough time (millions and millions of years)
I'm not sure what you're saying in the third post, could you please clarify?
Stootoot 2 years ago
I was just asking hexkid what he knows about "The Great Unconformity" which is major gap in the rock record between Cambrian times (550 mya) and the pre-Cambrian (anything earlier).
The internet is pretty quiet with regard to this dilemma in the geological record. There is one good site with several clear photos, but I can't seem to find much else.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I'm not sure what "The Great Uncorformity" has to do with fossils, or what point you are trying to make with it (and by the way, its not a gap in the rock record between 550mya and anything earlier, its a gap between 550mya and 1.2 billion years ago).
This phenomena is unique to( the soil around) the Grand Canyon, and is not a global pattern (this missing period is found in the geological record of other areas).
Stootoot 2 years ago
"That must be inferred from an assumed ancestor or function" - I suppose that's true, you do have to assume that what you are looking at is an ancestor of some species, rather than a completely distinct one. But when you see a long chain of fossils slowly becoming more like a present day species (see video above) the evidence is pretty conclusive.
Lastly, I have no views on God and the Bible, as I believe in neither.
And yes, I have never been taught an alternative to evolution.
Stootoot 2 years ago
"But when you see a long chain of fossils slowly becoming more like a present day species... the evidence is pretty conclusive."
The problem is, most animal phyla found in the Cambrian period still exist today.
Basically, we currently have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian period adds up to over 50 phyla. That means there are more phyla in the very beginning of animal life than exist now.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
"... 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but ... Cambrian period adds up to over 50 phyla."
*So some phyla died out? Or interbred with existing phyla until they no longer existed? I don't really see what this has to do with evolution (it doesn't prove it false or true) .
Evolution occurs on a species by species basis, not in groups or phylems.
*Would insects leave much fossil record? They have no skeleton, and isn't it the petrified skeletons that usually remain (not sure on this point)
Stootoot 2 years ago
"Evolution occurs on a species by species basis, not in groups or phylems."
But if all life started as bacteria and amebas that evolved from some primordial soup (as most text books claim), then how did we get so many different diverse groups or phylum?
There are two forms of evolution. One says we evolved all the way from soup (macro), and the other says we evolve via natural selection (micro). I agree with the latter, but it does not explain the first (i.e., the origin of life).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
All of your arguments for life not being able to survive seem to be based on life which we commonly experience today, not life as it may have been 4 billion years ago.
Look up Extremophiles on Wikipedia, specifically looking at Radioresistant bacteria (high resistance to UV radiation) and Hyperthermophiles (high temperature resistance). Continued...
Stootoot 2 years ago
Secondly, there was an atmosphere, of sorts. Not made from ozone, but rather ammonia, methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, which kept the temperatures below boiling. (Side note: why did you look up moon temperatures? Comparing the Earth (large planet with atmosphere) and the moon (small rock with no atmosphere) is a bit of a leap)
I don't understand exactly what your saying about the stromatolites. Are you saying that stromatolite colonies don't have a net oxygen production?
Stootoot 2 years ago
Look up Abiogenesis on Wikipedia. It lists all the theories for life's creation (there's a lot more than just the soup one). I think you find that the origin of life was determined more by chemical processes than by evolution (way too big to explain here, though (plus I don't understand it))
Can I ask you what theory of creation you support? Do you acknowledge that evolution does occur in some cases? Do you believe the origin of life is a scientific or a spiritual matter?
Stootoot 2 years ago
6 of 6
Oh, and one other passage is I like is Hebrews 11:1 & 3, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen [i.e., God, heaven, etc]... By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." That is Creation.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
5 of 6
I don't believe that Jesus would reference two things that did not exist.
Second, I do believe in "microevolution." We have many different kinds of dogs - wolves to poodles - but they are all still dogs. People also come in all different shapes, colors and sizes, but they are all still humans. So I believe characteristics can change, but I don't believe species evolve into other species (i.e., molecules to primates to man).
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
If you believe in 'microevolution' (small changes happening over short time), why do you not believe in the next logical step, large changes over large time (evolution)?
Some of these random changes could be beneficial to the mutated animal/plant, and so it is more likely that it will survive to breeding age. This means the size of the mutant population will increase, and due to interbreeding between these mutants, a new species will arise.
Which part of this process do you object to?
Stootoot 2 years ago
Shootoot "If you believe in 'microevolution'... why dont you believe in the next logical step, large changes over large time"
Because it's not currently being observed anywhere. Shouldn't it be an ongoing process?
Also, because there are defined limits to genetics (see Mendel's Law). If species change into new ones, what genetic mechanism causes this to happen?
When are beneficial mutations seen in nature? What good is a partial wing? Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by 20 to 1.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
If you believe in micro evolution you must believe in evolution. Evolution is just the accumulation of micro evolutions over time. So any evidence you have for micro evolution as an ongoing process (Dog types, etc) is also evidence for evolution as an ongoing process.
Also, evolution mostly occurs when the process of hereditary doesn't work. Mutations can occur during the process, resulting in offspring that are not limited by the genes of the parents (so Mendels law does not apply)
Stootoot 2 years ago
As for animals having partial organs, I have already given you an example: a mole. Some moles are blind, yet they still have eyes. Eyes are a useless organ that they still have as they are in the process of phasing it out.
That particular example (what good are partial organs) always annoys me. People always say it without checking the facts at all. Sure, if it didn't happen it would be a good point, but it does, sand it just shows the people saying it don't care about what actually happens.
Stootoot 2 years ago
Speciation is currently being seen in nature, do a search on Ring Species.
There are several; different types of mutation which can occur on a chromosome. The most common is mis-copying of one or two base-pairs which may cause the generation of an altered protein, another mutation can result in the duplication of part of the chromosome so that 2 copies of same gene are written.
This provides extra information which can also be mutated in subsequent generations.
hexkid 2 years ago
Hexkid, in your other post you said the moon's lunar orbit was inclined 5 degrees?
Actually, the moon's orbital is inclined 18.5 - 28.5 degrees to the earth's equator (see lunar "declination" & "standstill" on Wiki moon).
Re: the impact theory, "Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near the earth's equatorial plane."
Ward & Canup, "Origin of the Moon's Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions," Nature, 2000
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
AA32m7io1 - The declination is NOT the variance of the moons orbit from the ecliptic plane. This is only the observed angle of the moon in the sky from Earth's equator and is not the same thing at all since the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted.
The moon's orbit is between 5.00 & 5.3 degrees see Orbit of the Moon wiki. This does not seem to contradict anything in Ward & Canup's paper.
hexkid 2 years ago
I have just read back & I mis-read your initial question, sorry for the confusion.
I still think that Ward & Canup's paper answers you own question about the angle of orbit. Given a sufficient period of time the moon will be gravitationally attracted to the ecliptic plane and so it's current orbit will not have the same inclination as the one that it was formed in.
hexkid 2 years ago
4 of 6
Jesus also validates the account of Noah and the flood in Matthew 24:37 - 39, "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago