Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
wrong.flip wrote:The current theory of evolution depends on a fossil record and slow development over time...
I'm trying to make the way that we credit man for the development of the seedless grape a analogy for the way that I credit God for the creation of the earth.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Gonna have to disagree with you there. The truth is that God deserves all of the credit for everything created, but it was man that cultivated the seedless grape. The fact that man searched it out and selectively cultivated the grapes does not detract from the fact that God is overall the creator, but it is undeniably a separate thing. On a humorous note, I don't know that God would care for you to credit him with a fruit that can no longer reproduce itself (we screwed it up).
The disagreement is that you said that evolutionary theory DEPENDS on the absence of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record*. But that's wrong, no such dependence exists.flip wrote:Punctuated equilibrium is basically the same thing I'm saying. You need some kind of outside pressure to effect a change. Where are we disagreeing?
This is not what I said at all. I said that evolutionary theory depends on the fossil record, punctuated equilibrium was your counter-argument and I just used it to show we were agreeing, you just don't like the way I'm saying ityou said that evolutionary theory DEPENDS on the absence of punctuated equilibrium
vision wrote:News Flash: Reality is full of complex theories. Actual, true, testable theories. God is going to have to learn to live aside them because they are true. Also, I notice the same people keep using the word theory in the colloquial sense. In science, theory == law, not hypothesis.
no flip, punctuated equilibrium was part of YOUR argument. You described the concept but didn't name it, and i pointed out to you that what you were describing had a name "punctuated equilibrium", to which you then confirmed that that was indeed what you were describing.flip wrote:Funny, we were both thinking strange at the same time
This is not what I said at all. I said that evolutionary theory depends on the fossil record, punctuated equilibrium was your counter-argument and I just used it to show we were agreeing, you just don't like the way I'm saying itroid wrote:you said that evolutionary theory DEPENDS on the absence of punctuated equilibrium
Roid, flip first alluded to PE here:roid wrote:
no flip, punctuated equilibrium was part of YOUR argument. You described the concept but didn't name it, and i pointed out to you that what you were describing had a name "punctuated equilibrium", to which you then confirmed that that was indeed what you were describing.
(I linked to it's wiki article to show you that puntuated equilibrium is seen as a PART of modern evolutionary theory, not an anathema to it.)
Can someone else here please give me some kindof reality check, to me it's as plain as day what flip said, yet he's denying it. Apparently i'm making a comprehension error but i can't see it, can someone please help me see where it is? I'd like to know i'm not going crazy before i continue.
[youtube]AG7LjVCj50Y[/youtube]
Then Slick was kind enough to come in and give separate definitions for the big cluster of confusion "evolution" has become. It's like pin the tail on the donkey now, but the tail always has to be called evolution. Like I said before, one definition has merit, the other has nothing but speculation.No I didn't. I said that things would happen suddenly with periods of rest in between and that the Cambrian Explosion(fossil record) is just one indication of that.
Are you laboring under a misconception?flip wrote:No I didn't. I said that things would happen suddenly with periods of rest in between and that the Cambrian Explosion(fossil record) is just one indication of that.
The Wikipedia article on the Cambrian explosion also has some useful discussion.berkeley.edu wrote: Stratigraphy
A lot can happen in 40 million years, the approximate length of the Cambrian Period. Animals showed dramatic diversification during this period of Earth's history. This has been called the "Cambrian Explosion". When the fossil record is scrutinized closely, it turns out that the fastest growth in the number of major new animal groups took place during the as-yet-unnamed second and third stages (generally known as the Tommotian and Atdabanian stages) of the early Cambrian, a period of about 13 million years.
It all agreesFear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.
Sorry, but some millions of years is "overnight" only to poets and science writers for the masses (unfortunately). You need to go back to the talk origins article I linked above and re-read it - have a good look at the references, and then go through the links past claim CC300 (to CC301, then click on "List of Claims" at the top of the page and poke around a bit; it will be worth your time.). There is plenty of more recent scholarship on studies of Pre-Cambrian life, such as this. So, there was no "absence of life" before the Cambrian. The fact there there have been many extinctions just points to the fragility of many specialized life forms, as well as to the relative durability of some other types of life forms.flip wrote:Yes, exactly "on a geological timescale" that is just about overnight. Plus, the real evidence is not the explosion of life but the absence of life before that. Mainly nothing but worms. From that time till now 98% of them have become extinct. So, if you look at the broad picture and time on a geological scale, we see a huge explosion of life, then most have died off by our present time. No misconception, just a real broad picture
, there was a sudden explosion of diversity of life. 13-40 million years is a drop in the bucket. I can't see where we are disagreeing really, except in perception of time?OK, that's fine. It's just that based on statements like the one you made earlier -flip wrote:All I'm saying, and I'm agreeing with all the science, is that considering the time-scale we are talking about, key events happened in relatively short orders of time. I'm agreeing with dates, the times and the events.
- then I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Last ime I looked, there were numerous species still on the planet, filling a breathtaking array of ecological niches. In what way is "evolution failing"? The fact that many species have failed to survive is simply an example of the fact that the Earth's land, water and atmosphere have changed dramatically over the last 600 million years or so (not to mention the even larger changes over the preceding 3 billion + years).flip wrote:That things seemed to happen very fast on a geologic scale and the fact that 98% of the creatures that used to exist on the planet are extinct seems to suggest evolution is failing at it's job significantly.
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~vemuri/EngPopsci/grapes.htmWell, this is almost like the age old chicken and egg problem. Historians tell us that the first seedless variety was grown somewhere in Central Asia many centuries ago. A farmer with a keen eye noticed that one grapevine suddenly started producing grapes without seeds. This kind of thing happens all the time and is called mutation. He (or she) saw the advantage in saving and propagating this mutant and did so by "taking a cutting." The rest is history. Did I say that this kind of thing happens all the time? How come all interesting this like this happen centuries ago? As recently as two decades ago, another savvy farmer in California noticed that a vine that normally produced Emperor Grapes (with seeds) suddenly produced a seedless mutant. Now we have seedless Emperor grapes. When I say "seedless," do not take me literally. In some varieties, you may find tiny wannable seeds.
It's those environmental changes I'm talking about. I don't see anything "evolving" I see things dieing off because of environ-mental changes. For instance, dinosaurs. They became extinct almost overnight from catastrophic change in their environment, not ONE survived till present day, but, all modern life can be traced back to the Cambrian Event before dinosaurs.- then I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Last ime I looked, there were numerous species still on the planet, filling a breathtaking array of ecological niches. In what way is "evolution failing"? The fact that many species have failed to survive is simply an example of the fact that the Earth's land, water and atmosphere have changed dramatically over the last 600 million years or so (not to mention the even larger changes over the preceding 3 billion + years).
Lets not get carried away.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Oh ★■◆●... you mean I'm not a monkey?!
Species do not evolve. It is in populations within species that you can find evolutionary change. And failure to adapt to environmental change is not the only reason that a species may die out. A life form may be well able to survive in its environment, but can be outcompeted for resources by other life forms in that environment.flip wrote:I don't see evolution in species. I see the environment changing so that it no longer supports certain life-forms.
Again, I don't buy the "overnight" metaphor. It was probably many years (perhaps thousands or tens of thousands; we don't know) after the Chicxulub event (and whatever else happened near the KT boundary) before the last of the dinosaurs died. A popular theory is that modern birds evolved from some species of dinosaurs. (See also here). And dinosaurs themselves were not large and dominant creatures before the Mesozoic Era. But the evidence suggests that they were descendents of earlier life forms.flip wrote:It's those environmental changes I'm talking about. I don't see anything "evolving" I see things dieing off because of environ-mental changes. For instance, dinosaurs. They became extinct almost overnight from catastrophic change in their environment, not ONE survived till present day, but, all modern life can be traced back to the Cambrian Event before dinosaurs.
Well, there's a good case that they are just not growing as long either. Take a juvenile Iguana for instance. It is very different in appearance than a full grown adult Iguana. The adults develop long spines and their jaws begin jutting out. Let's say that atmospheric conditions once allowed for every living thing to live longer. If an Iguana lived for 400 years, how much would it's appearance have changed in that amount of time? Lizards just continue growing until they die. I imagine in 400 years one could grow quite large. Atmosphere and conditions play a big role in a creatures lifespan. There is no way to know the condition of the atmosphere before the events that destroyed the dinosaurs but it could have allowed much longer lifespans by filtering out more of the aging effects of the sun. So nothing evolved, just a majority died off and the ones that remain just don't live as long.A popular theory is that modern birds evolved from some species of dinosaurs. (See also here). And dinosaurs themselves were not large and dominant creatures before the Mesozoic Era. But the evidence suggests that they were descendents of earlier life forms.
Although the Precambrian contains some seven-eighths of Earth's history, its fossil record is poor, with the majority of fossils being the stromatolites that are often heavily metamorphosed or deeply buried.
What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.
So, we come from nothing but stromatolites to a great explosion of diversity in which all major body plans and varieties of each all coexist together. Then from that time forward we see nothing but decline.To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence.
[patience, Dear Lord, patience ...]flip wrote:Well, there's a good case that they are just not growing as long either. Take a juvenile Iguana for instance. It is very different in appearance than a full grown adult Iguana. The adults develop long spines and their jaws begin jutting out. Let's say that atmospheric conditions once allowed for every living thing to live longer. If an Iguana lived for 400 years, how much would it's appearance have changed in that amount of time? Lizards just continue growing until they die. I imagine in 400 years one could grow quite large. Atmosphere and conditions play a big role in a creatures lifespan. There is no way to know the condition of the atmosphere before the events that destroyed the dinosaurs but it could have allowed much longer lifespans by filtering out more of the aging effects of the sun. So nothing evolved, just a majority died off and the ones that remain just don't live as long.
Science is made up of alot of "if's". It's what drives it along. We agree that there was a huge atmospheric disturbance and if this is trueso, your argument is that IF the iguana lives for 400 years ...
and
IF the atmospheric conditions could have led to a longer lifespan ....
then dinosaurs were just big (because they were long-lived) lizards and weren't evolved.
And so, nothing evolved.
Is that it?
. At any rate, it makes more sense in that context, considering "virtually every phyla known to man" is found in that layer. This doesn't suggest slow development over time, it suggest huge major overhauls at specific intervals and considering the time involved, very quick overhauls. If nothing but simple, soft bodied worms and the like are before this "transition" period, and all the major branches are already defined in this layer, where is your evolution? It makes more sense to think of this in terms of "events."yeah, the process can start with lots of "if's". But there has to be evidence that the "if's" actually happened (or good evidence that they very well could have happened) before we can start to feel any confidence about conclusions drawn on any of those "if's". What "atmospheric disturbance" do you think happened at the boundary between the late Precambrian and the Cambrian? What evidence do you have for it?flip wrote:Science is made up of alot of "if's". It's what drives it along. We agree that there was a huge atmospheric disturbance and if this is true
Information I've already linked to shows that the last assertion is FALSE. Because new body plans existed after the start of the Cambrian does not mean that all species based on those body plans existed during the Cambrian. This is the data the fossil record shows. In addition, it is not true that all phyla developed in the Cambrian"The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously"
Glenn Morton wrote:The Setting
The Cambrian/Precambrian boundary is no longer considered as the place where life suddenly appears. There is a continuum of life across this boundary. Grotzinger et al (1995, p. 603-604) write:
"Once held as the position in the rock record where the major invertebrate groups first appeared, the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary now serves more as a convenient reference point within an evolutionary continuum. Skeletalized organisms, including Cambrian-aspect shelly fossils, first appear below the boundary and then show strong diversification during the Early Cambrian. Similarly, trace fossils also appear first in the Vendian, exhibit a progression to more complex geometries across the boundary, and then parallel the dramatic radiation displayed by body fossils."
...
Why is there an idea of a Cambrian explosion?
Given the data above, why do apologists still treat the Cambrian as an explosion? Basically, it is because they have not kept up with the increased knowledge of this time period over the past 50 years. Lazarus J. Salop (1983, p. v) wrote:
�Progress in Precambrian geology has been exceptionally great, indeed, quite striking for geologists of the older generation; only some 30-40 years ago the Precambrian appeared as an uncertain and even mystic prelude to geologic evolution. Even the very name-Precambrian-means some indivisible unit in the early history of the Earth, the beginning of which is poorly known.�
In general it is my belief that apologists have not really studied the Precambrian in any detail or have merely re-stated what others have erroneously written. The first red-herring to be corrected is the false idea that virtually all phyla appear in the Cambrian. Ray Bohlin writes:
�Nowhere is the problem of sudden appearance better demonstrated than in the Burgess Shale found in the Canadian Rockies. The Burgess Shale illustrates that in the Cambrian period (which evolutionists estimate as being over 540 million years ago) nearly all of the basic body plans (phyla) of animals existing on earth came into existence in a geological instant (defined as only 5 to 10 million years). No new phyla have appeared since that time (the Bryazoa [sic�grm] are one possible exception, but many paleontologists believe they will eventually be found to originate in the Cambrian period)." (Bohlin, 2000, p. 23)
This simply isn't true. Berkeley has posted an interesting display of when the various phyla appear. It can be found at
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html
When one analyses the first appearance data of that chart, they find the following (with one addition of Cycliophora which isn't on their list and the moving of 3 additional definite Vendian phyla from the Cambrian to the Vendian as noted earlier on this page):
Period # phyla which appear in period
Recent 12
Oligocene 1
Eocene 1
Jurassic 1
Carboniferous 3
Devonian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4
(note that the Berkeley chart is inconsistent with the data presented here. The phyla found in the Precambrian would move Cambrian creatures back to the Vendian. This would not affect the way I use the data in the next paragraph.)
If one considers the Vendian/Cambrian animals as constituting the Cambrian Explosion, then we have 13 phyla appearing in the Cambrian Explosion and 20 AFTER the Cambrian Explosion. While one can assume that the 13 phyla which have no fossil record arose in the Cambrian, assumptions are NOT data. The plain fact is that the Cambrian Explosion doesn't even represent the majority of the phyla. Will these other phyla be found in the Cambrian? Maybe. But one can't rationally assume what the future holds in order to argue to his case.
Like I said, your premises are false, so I have no confidence in your conclusions. Also, it appears you aren't taking the trouble to read what I link. I suggest you search out and study some more of Glenn Morton's work. It will be of much more use to you than the other stuff you've been posting.flip wrote:Then I would be trying to figure out how the atmosphere changed and caused a mass extinction. Some say "if" it was an asteroid hit, some say "if" it was mass volcano eruptions, some say "if" the continents drifted drastically. They ALL agree that all this was going on at the same time. I say it was probably all that combined, but it's generally agreed that atmospheric change was the major contributor. It makes more sense to me to think there was a huge explosion of life and since that time till now, through many different catalysts, they are ALL but extinct. I guess evolution ultimately feels we are better off without you
Your source is making an incorrect assertion. No one ever said "life suddenly appears". I've said myself at least 3 times there was life, just at that layer there is an explosion of diversity and the life before that was simple worm-like creatures. We obviously evolved from these worms then?The Cambrian/Precambrian boundary is no longer considered as the place where life suddenly appears. There is a continuum of life across this boundary. Grotzinger et al (1995, p. 603-604) write:
"Once held as the position in the rock record where the major invertebrate groups first appeared, the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary now serves more as a convenient reference point within an evolutionary continuum. Skeletalized organisms, including Cambrian-aspect shelly fossils, first appear below the boundary and then show strong diversification during the Early Cambrian. Similarly, trace fossils also appear first in the Vendian, exhibit a progression to more complex geometries across the boundary, and then parallel the dramatic radiation displayed by body fossils."
Keep reading. The point is that there was significant diversity across the Vendian/Cambrian boundary, which has been the subject of much recent scholarship. So the definite increase in diversity that signifies the Cambrian didn't come from "just worms", nor did it just occur at the start of the Cambrian, but occurred throughout the Cambrian period.flip wrote:Your source is making an incorrect assertion. No one ever said "life suddenly appears". I've said myself at least 3 times there was life, just at that layer there is an explosion of diversity and the life before that was simple worm-like creatures. We obviously evolved from these worms then?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/cambrian.phpThe Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on Earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion," because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears. It was once thought that Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals, but these are now found in the earlier Ediacaran (Vendian) strata.
It was as some call "Lifes Big Bang" and considering the geological age of the Earth, 40 million years is very fast. It also fits into my greater point, which is not really about evolution at all, but the speed at which things happened. Such as this:"Almost every metazoan phylum with hard parts, and many that lack hard parts, made its first appearance in the Cambrian. The only modern phylum with an adequate fossil record to appear after the Cambrian was the phylum Bryozoa, which is not known before the early Ordovician. A few mineralized animal fossils, including sponge spicules and probable worm tubes, are known from the Ediacaran Period immediately preceding the Cambrian. Some of the odd fossils of the biota from the Ediacaran may also have been animals representative of living phyla, although this remains a somewhat controversial topic. However, the Cambrian was nonetheless a time of great evolutionary innovation, with many major groups of organisms appearing within a span of only forty million years."
My point is how key events happened from the beginning until now, and considering the time frame, I think 220 million years is pretty damn fast to form a complete galaxy. Then we see the same thing with our Sun and the formation of the Earth. They are both 4.5 billion years old, so almost the instant you have a star begin forming, you have an Earth formed. In just 200 or so million years, there is already water present on the Earth. This suggests a fully formed atmosphere and magnetosphere in just 200 million years! The dinosaurs were on Earth almost as long.At 650 million years,Stars forming in galaxy J1148+5251; Make carbon, oxygen atoms and begin to blast these atoms into interstellar space
Just 220 million years after star formation,J1148+5251 has accumulated massive reservoir of cool molecular gas containing Carbon Monoxide (CO) molecules; Radio waves from these molecules begin their journey to Earth.
Considering we are dealing with the Universe, I find it astonishing to see how things came together, the steps taken, and the quickness by which it was done.I'm going to take some time to read over everything you've posted so far, but I still think we are agreeing, we just are thinking of time in different ways.When the fossil record is scrutinized closely, it turns out that the fastest growth in the number of major new animal groups took place during the as-yet-unnamed second and third stages (generally known as the Tommotian and Atdabanian stages) of the early Cambrian, a period of about 13 million years. In that time, the first undoubted fossil annelids, arthropods, brachiopods, echinoderms, molluscs, onychophorans, poriferans, and priapulids show up in rocks all over the world.
EDIT:This means that man was the last to develop but also the most evolved?Scientists from UCLA and Australia Find Evidence
of Water on Earth 4.3 Billion Years Ago
Scientists from UCLA and Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Australia have found strong evidence for liquid water at or near the Earth's surface 4.3 billion years ago - research that pushes back our knowledge of the presence of liquid water on Earth some 400 million years.
"We don't know when life began on Earth yet, but it potentially could have emerged as early as 4.3 billion years ago because we infer that all three required conditions for life existed then," said T. Mark Harrison, professor of geochemistry at UCLA, who directs UCLA's W.M. Keck Foundation Center for Isotope Geochemistry.
"There was a source of energy: the sun; a source of raw minerals: complex organic compounds from meteorites or comets; and our inference that liquid water existed at or near the Earth's surface. Within 200 million years of the Earth's formation, all of the conditions for life on Earth appear to have been met."
Stephen J. Mojzsis, a former UCLA postdoctoral scholar in Harrison's laboratory, who is now an assistant professor of geology at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the lead author of the Nature paper, goes even further.
"The stage was set 4.3 billion years ago for life to emerge on Earth," said Mojzsis, who is also a member of the University of Colorado's NASA-funded Astrobiology Institute. "There was probably already in place an Earth with an atmosphere, an ocean, and a stable crust within about two hundred million years of the Earth's formation.
