RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,00:49   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2011,04:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,15:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.

Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, S.-X., Chen, L., Han, J., Zhu, M., Li, Y. and Chen, L.-Z., Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402:42–46, 1999.

Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402:21–22, 1999.

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F., Yasui, K., Janvier, P., Chen, L., Zhang, X.-L., Liu, J.-N., Li, Y. and Liu, H.-Q., Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature 421:526–529, 2003.

How long did this "explosion" take again? Remind me.

Wont rightly know  fur sure until we reach the promised land but obviously fairly quick since so many are found in the same rock.

Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" . This is why top evolution gurus Gould and Eldridge came up with their theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the utter lack of intermediates in the fossil record .

Scientists usually label fossil layers according to geologic eras based on index fossils but they should be labeling them as eco zones. For instance the Cambrian is a seafloor zone that always contains seafloor critters.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,01:35   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Woodbine



Posts: 769
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,01:59   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,07:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

I Googled the phrase and I'm shocked, shocked I tell you....

Harun Yahya


  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,03:09   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,04:45   

All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
rossum



Posts: 176
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,06:08   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:12)
Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims?

No.  The Abrahamic god, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Moslems, is mistaken and his claims are in error.  He claims to be the Immortal Omnipotent Creator, but his claims are wrong.   He is long lived, but not immortal.  He is powerful, but not omnipotent.  He didn't create the world, but is deluded in thinking that he did.

Quote
Tantric rituals involve ...

There are two possibilities here.  First, you have been initiated into one of the Tantric lineages, and in the process sworn yourself not to reveal its secrets to the uninitiated.  In this case you are an oath breaker and not to be trusted.  Second, that you have not been initiated and that you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge.  Again, what you say is not to be trusted.  I consider that the second possibility is more likely.

Tantras are secret.  Even when they are written down, they are written in coded language so that the uninitiated cannot understand them.  Knowing that the translation of "a red herring" is "a pink fish" does not help you get to the real meaning of the text.  The words of a written Tantra are deliberately designed to be misleading to the uninitiated.  You cannot learn Tantra from a book; you have to be initiated.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,06:16   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,00:49)
Wont rightly know  fur sure until we reach the promised land but obviously fairly quick since so many are found in the same rock.

So, given your knowledge of how quickly such rocks form can you put some boundaries on "fairly quick"?

Days? Years? Thousands of years?

What?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,08:04   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,03:09)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

Come now, you don't really expect us to think you read something that requires a trip to the library?

The odds are that you grabbed both the hearsay and the reference from this site.

ETA: Forgot to mention that you couldn't even get that much right. Here's what the page said:

Quote

[...] Commenting on the puzzling status of the Ediacaran (Vendian) fossils, the Russian paleontologist Mikhail Fedonkin writes:

We are now in the situation Charles Darwin found himself in about 150 years ago. He was puzzled by the absence of the ancestors of the Cambrian invertebrates, considering this fact as a strong argument against his theory of gradualistic evolution of species. We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian fauna as well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state."5


Mistaking something explicitly attributed to Fedonkin as something Darwin wrote seems about your speed.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 03 2011,08:08

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,09:08   

Quote
...My library is all packed up at the moment...




--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,09:28   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2011,10:45)
BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.

Yes you are still avoiding my responses to you on page 8 and 9 and also for about the tenth time you have avoided my request for you to describe in your own words natural mutation selection and where it leads to different orders etc..

Oh.  that?

OK, so if I answer it AGAIN, then you will answer all of my questions?  

Excellent, I'll hold you to that.

First of all, you have a fundamental misunderstanding (color me surprised).  Orders are not a level at which mutation and selection play a part.  Orders are large groupings of taxonomically similar species and genuses.

Consider the following:
Kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

This can easily be remembered by the phrase
King
Phillip
came
over
for
good
sex
(well, that's what I heard!)

Now, where are populations of organisms in this list?  The species level.  Where are individuals on this list?  The species level.  

All the action, as it where, happens at the species and (very, very rarely) the genus level (i.e. I only know of one speciation event that was significant enough to result in a change of genus*)

Now, why will mutation and selection NOT result in a change of family or order?

Because the family and order groupings are based on very specific anatomical features that, because of the nature of evolution, will not change.

for example, the order Carnivora is based on organisms that have the following characters:
carnassial teeth
no fewer than 4 toes on each foot
well developed canine teeth
6 incisors, 2 canines
many have 'dew claws' or vestigial first digits

And yet, organisms in as wide a range as polar bears to palm civets are all in this category.  The requirements for fitting into this order are listed.

It will be nearly impossible for a population of non-carnivores to evolve into carnivores.

What you are asking is that a species shed all the characteristics that make it a part of whatever order it currently is (if you use Artiodactyl as an example, then the population would have to gain two toes, change the entire morphology of it's foot, change from herbivore to carnivore (with the unique digestive system of artiodactyles disappearing and being replaced by a carnivore system (i.e. three chambered stomach going away, shortening intestines, biochemistry devoted to plant material converting to meat, etc.))  etc. etc. etc.

Do you begin to see the picture?

No one, not a single real scientist on the planet would suggest that is even possible, much less a requirement that evolution be able to accomplish.

Basically, you are asking how evolution can turn a duck into a crocodile and the answer is, it can't.  If you believe that this falsifies evolution, then you don't even know what evolution is, much less be capable of developing coherent arguments against it.



* interestingly, this paper (which I have asked if you wanted earlier) shows that a mutation in a plant species did result in a change of genus.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,09:32   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,09:35   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,14:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:44)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

 If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "Your Inner Fish" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  

Inner Fish? Is that based on Earnst Haekels' fraud filled fetal fish propaganda used by the Nazis to promote abortion, eugenics and infanticide?

See... I told you.  

You are too chicken to even read something that may conflict with your beliefs.  I pointed you to the articles in questions.

Even a cursory search on the internet would tell you what Your Inner Fish is about.  Or you could read my chapter-by-chapter summary and actually learn something... or not.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,09:40   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,14:15)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 25 2011,07:18)
forastero,

You have shifted the goal post again.  "The endocrine system selects the phenotype" does not equal epigenetics.

Here, this is from the first scholarly paper using the search terms you have given us  
Quote
. A unifying theme of disease epigenetics is defects in phenotypic plasticity--cells' ability to change their behaviour in response to internal or external environmental cues.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522677


Phenotypic plasticity, doesn't mean what you think it means.

Epepigenetics is a type of phenotypic plasticity and its extremely dynamic so...

Why do you limit epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity definition to diseases?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so...

Who are you trying to fool?

I limit in the way I describe because that is ONLY POSSIBLE WAY in which epigenetics results in plasticity.

I am limiting it because that's what it is.

You are trying to change your original claim AND the definition of an well defined concept to suit your claims.  As usual, you obviously have no evidence, or idea what you are talking about.

Every single poster here is asking for evidence for your claims.  A real scientist would be laying down facts, figures, and data as fast as he could type it in.  References, supporting documents, etc. too.

You are engaged in semantics, obfuscation, and goal-post shifting to try and gain some measure of credibility.  It's too late.

BTW: Here's the list of questions you need to answer.  You'll find my answer to your question, in detail above.
(Please use your own words, so we know that you understand the concepts involved.)  


define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man  (The Daily Mail is not peer-reviewed evidence and you have not cited evidence for other claims)
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,11:06   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,06:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:12)
Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims?

No.  The Abrahamic god, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Moslems, is mistaken and his claims are in error.  He claims to be the Immortal Omnipotent Creator, but his claims are wrong.   He is long lived, but not immortal.  He is powerful, but not omnipotent.  He didn't create the world, but is deluded in thinking that he did.

 
Quote
Tantric rituals involve ...

There are two possibilities here.  First, you have been initiated into one of the Tantric lineages, and in the process sworn yourself not to reveal its secrets to the uninitiated.  In this case you are an oath breaker and not to be trusted.  Second, that you have not been initiated and that you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge.  Again, what you say is not to be trusted.  I consider that the second possibility is more likely.

Tantras are secret.  Even when they are written down, they are written in coded language so that the uninitiated cannot understand them.  Knowing that the translation of "a red herring" is "a pink fish" does not help you get to the real meaning of the text.  The words of a written Tantra are deliberately designed to be misleading to the uninitiated.  You cannot learn Tantra from a book; you have to be initiated.

rossum

pwned!  Love it.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,11:12   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:49)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 02 2011,10:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
 
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

I'm sorry; I missed the part where you answered the question.  If you'd be so kind, maybe you could point that part out to me.  Again.  I know I'm being dense.  Thanks.

Millions of miraculous machines scurrying about prove a Great Designer. The scriptures and the millions of miraculous conversions prove which religion is legit

Sorry I can't seem to stay on track--all these atheists and bhuddists and evildoers and all--so,

forastero, will you please enlighten me (as you seem the only one who actually answers questions) as to the answers to these questions?

I seem to have missed them.  Again?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,11:26   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,08:04)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,03:09)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

Come now, you don't really expect us to think you read something that requires a trip to the library?

Yeah, do not pull that crap with me, either. You're talking to a reference librarian, bub.

ETA - Meant for forastero, not Wesley!

Edited by Kristine on Nov. 03 2011,11:27

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
JohnW



Posts: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,11:39   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,11:47   

HE'S NOT DEAD, HE'S POSTING FROM THE COMPUTER UPSTAIRS...INSIDE YOUR HOUSE

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,11:54   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 03 2011,11:47)
HE'S NOT DEAD, HE'S POSTING FROM THE COMPUTER UPSTAIRS...INSIDE YOUR HOUSE



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,12:39   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?

You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?

I already said in Occam terms that the Cambrian represents a benthic ecosystem that appeared suddenly via creation by God as did our earth and our intricate solar system. A planet and solar system that all run together like a finely tuned machine in order to allow that life to exist hear on earth.

When you Buddhist and pseudist gonna explain why you dance to the tune of spontaneous generation from primordial soup that accidentally exploded into a super huge zoo?   Oh I remember. There was this thing called abiogenesis where spontaneous but accidental aggregation of lipids and proteins formed primitive spaghetti monsters from the fountain of soup. Then occasional heights of solar activity came down from the heavens to cause Saltation or punctuated equilibrium that miraculously lead to greater rates of mutation which in turn lead to sudden explosions of diversity.  Unfortunately for you, top biologists astrobiologists destroyed your theory.

Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian creationist and skeptic of Darwinism would finally disprove the fallacy called Spontaneous Generation in 1859. Pasteur referred his findings as The Law of Biogenesis, which is now the fundamental law of biology. However, Darwin's The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life lead to a revival of the spontaneous biogenesis or generation theory. From this arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4) Organic Evolution ( Spontaneous origin of organic life from a rock) (5) Macro Evolution (Mutation theory) and (6) Micro evolution. Pasteur would endure years of opposition, ridicule and outright hatred from evolutionary pseudo-scientists. But why would such a contradictory position be entertained? Because, as Dr. George Wald of Harvard, indicated, the other alternative, special creation, simply is not acceptable.

Many years later Chandra Wickramasinghe and fred Hoyle who calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed: The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olson, have detailed why your biogenesis theories are ridiculous

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,12:57   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2011,06:16)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,00:49)
Wont rightly know  fur sure until we reach the promised land but obviously fairly quick since so many are found in the same rock.

So, given your knowledge of how quickly such rocks form can you put some boundaries on "fairly quick"?

Days? Years? Thousands of years?

What?

Fossilization is a fairly rare event because it needs just the right and often miraculous processes to occur, Thus, for you to suggest that these Cambrian fossils just happened to fossilize over and over again over millions of years in the same select vicinities is just boulderdash

Oh and rocks can occur in seconds

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,12:59   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,08:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,03:09)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

Where and when did he say this?

My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.

Come now, you don't really expect us to think you read something that requires a trip to the library?

The odds are that you grabbed both the hearsay and the reference from this site.

ETA: Forgot to mention that you couldn't even get that much right. Here's what the page said:

Quote

[...] Commenting on the puzzling status of the Ediacaran (Vendian) fossils, the Russian paleontologist Mikhail Fedonkin writes:

We are now in the situation Charles Darwin found himself in about 150 years ago. He was puzzled by the absence of the ancestors of the Cambrian invertebrates, considering this fact as a strong argument against his theory of gradualistic evolution of species. We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian fauna as well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state."5


Mistaking something explicitly attributed to Fedonkin as something Darwin wrote seems about your speed.

I actually own the book and will dig it out just for you

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:01   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:39)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?

You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?

Um, no.  by the way, posting while drunk is bad form if you are just going to durp on and on about shit you obviously don't understand.

 just saying

Quote
I already said in Occam terms that the Cambrian represents a benthic ecosystem that appeared suddenly via creation by God as did our earth and our intricate solar system. A planet and solar system that all run together like a finely tuned machine in order to allow that life to exist hear on earth.


so?  i think someone else already said you are a tedious and unctuous bore.  why should anyone give a fuck what you say?  that's all you have done, innit?  "say"?

but, let me stop you "hear".  according to what you just wrote above, you are saying that not only the "cambrian" but also "our earth" and our "intricate solar system" are benthic ecosystems that appeared suddenly via creation by God?  that is the first interesting thing you have said!  do go on, and by that i mean exactly that.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:03   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:57)
Oh and rocks can occur in seconds

MINE

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:16   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.

I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter

  
JohnW



Posts: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:26   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,10:39)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?

You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?

Answer of "No, I haven't" duly noted.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:48   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,13:26)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,10:39)
     
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?

You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?

Answer of "No, I haven't" duly noted.

Quite. But if forastero wants to read about Darwin's opinions on slavery, start here.

Though I am not counting on it, somebody may actually learn something.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:12   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.

I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti

c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter

You said...

"Endocrine system determines phenotype"

Do you still support that claim or not?  If you do, then evidence has been asked for several times and now, once more.

Further, I note that you have not acted in good faith, I answered your question, quite thoroughly I might add (and in my own words), you have not yet done so.

Finally, I would like to point out that the BURIAL EVENT probably did occur in seconds.  It's called a landslide.  I'm sure you can find a video of one on youtube.

However, the landslide (even if underwater on the continental shelf) burial event is NOT the Cambrian Explosion.  That is the surge in diversity that occurred over the Cambrian Period, which lasted for about 50 million years... I believe I have already given sufficient evidence for the dating of the Cambrian.

Your turn... I would appreciate answers to my questions now.  Thanks.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:23   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.

I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti

c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter

Earth, Moon, and Stars.

This is NOT a change in PHENOTYPE.  This is the activation of a gene.  

OK, I think it now obvious to anyone who does know what's going on that you don't.

Again, I'd appreciate those questions answered.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:49   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2011,10:45)
BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.

Yes you are still avoiding my responses to you on page 8 and 9 and also for about the tenth time you have avoided my request for you to describe in your own words natural mutation selection and where it leads to different orders etc..

Oh.  that?

OK, so if I answer it AGAIN, then you will answer all of my questions?  

Excellent, I'll hold you to that.

First of all, you have a fundamental misunderstanding (color me surprised).  Orders are not a level at which mutation and selection play a part.  Orders are large groupings of taxonomically similar species and genuses.

Consider the following:
Kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

This can easily be remembered by the phrase
King
Phillip
came
over
for
good
sex
(well, that's what I heard!)

Now, where are populations of organisms in this list?  The species level.  Where are individuals on this list?  The species level.  

All the action, as it where, happens at the species and (very, very rarely) the genus level (i.e. I only know of one speciation event that was significant enough to result in a change of genus*)

Now, why will mutation and selection NOT result in a change of family or order?

Because the family and order groupings are based on very specific anatomical features that, because of the nature of evolution, will not change.

for example, the order Carnivora is based on organisms that have the following characters:
carnassial teeth
no fewer than 4 toes on each foot
well developed canine teeth
6 incisors, 2 canines
many have 'dew claws' or vestigial first digits

And yet, organisms in as wide a range as polar bears to palm civets are all in this category.  The requirements for fitting into this order are listed.

It will be nearly impossible for a population of non-carnivores to evolve into carnivores.

What you are asking is that a species shed all the characteristics that make it a part of whatever order it currently is (if you use Artiodactyl as an example, then the population would have to gain two toes, change the entire morphology of it's foot, change from herbivore to carnivore (with the unique digestive system of artiodactyles disappearing and being replaced by a carnivore system (i.e. three chambered stomach going away, shortening intestines, biochemistry devoted to plant material converting to meat, etc.))  etc. etc. etc.

Do you begin to see the picture?

No one, not a single real scientist on the planet would suggest that is even possible, much less a requirement that evolution be able to accomplish.

Basically, you are asking how evolution can turn a duck into a crocodile and the answer is, it can't.  If you believe that this falsifies evolution, then you don't even know what evolution is, much less be capable of developing coherent arguments against it.



* interestingly, this paper (which I have asked if you wanted earlier) shows that a mutation in a plant species did result in a change of genus.

Hmm I am glad that we agree that animals don’t mutate into other classes of animals. And here I always thought Panda’s Thumb believed herbivorous pandas mutated from Ursines. I guess you would also say that herb eaters like afarensis or habilis didn’t mutate into meat eating homos? Come to think of it, the priest over at Nat. Geo. have been saying the vegi orangutan is genetically closer to meet eating homos than are chimps. Of course you don’t really believe that.

Interestingly, epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets. You should read up on it sometime

  
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]