Cambrian Explosion?
Roy Jose Lorr
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Srawrafd57gJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fid%3D119+Cambrian+Explosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11
Excerpt:
"Darwin called his theory "descent with modification." The
phrase reflected Darwin's belief that all organisms are
modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the
distant past. The only illustration in Darwin's book The
Origin of Species shows the "tree of life" pattern one would
expect to find in the fossil record if his theory were true.
The common ancestor would come first, as a single species at
the base of the tree. Minor differences among individuals
would appear first, and these differences would eventually
increase until one species had become two or more.
Differences among species would then grow until some species
became so different they would be classed as separate
genera; genera would diverge to become separate families,
families would diverge to become separate orders, and so on.
Eventually differences would become so great that where
there had originally been one major division or "phylum,"
there would now be two. Today there are several dozen animal
phyla. The major ones include the nematodes (roundworms),
annelids (earthworms and leeches), mollusks (clams and
snails), arthropods (lobsters and insects), echinoderms
(starfish and sea urchins) and chordates (fishes and
mammals). If Darwin's theory were true, then a long
accumulation of minor differences must have preceded the
major differences we now see among the animal phyla. As
Darwin himself wrote, before the different phyla appeared
there must have been "vast periods" during which "the world
swarmed with living creatures" (Excerpt A, p. 83). In the
fossil record, however, most of the major animal phyla
appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological
period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that
they branched off from a common ancestor. Darwin was aware
of this, acknowledging in The Origin of Species that
"several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom
suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." He
called this a "serious" problem which "at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid
argument against the views here entertained" (Excerpt A, pp.
82, 85). (A) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth
Edition (New York: D, Appleton, 1890), Chapter X. Darwin
remained convinced that his theory was true, however. He
speculated that ancestors of the different phyla had not
been found because the fossil record was imperfect. If, as
it seemed, rocks before the Cambrian had been deformed by
heat and pressure, or eroded away, then fossil ancestors
might never be found. He acknowledged, though, that he
really had "no satisfactory answer" to the problem (Excerpt
A, p. 84). "
Turner
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Yup, Darwin acknowledged that the Cambrian Explosion seems to pose a
problem to the evolutionary tree of life. However, that was 150 years
ago, and scientists have since made much more progress and realise that
it doesn't contradict evolutionary science.
See
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html and
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
Using decades-old information is not going to help you much in arguing
against modern science.
Ghod
news:1163446180.2...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It wouldn't suprise me if he's just trying to fill in for Ed of the
petrified brain.
Roy Jose Lorr
Seems that decades old information is still valid. Nothing
at talk.origins contradicts it.
Mike
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> > Yup, Darwin acknowledged that the Cambrian Explosion seems to pose a
> > problem to the evolutionary tree of life. However, that was 150 years
> > ago, and scientists have since made much more progress and realise that
> > it doesn't contradict evolutionary science.
> >
> > See
> > www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html and
> > www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
> >
> > Using decades-old information is not going to help you much in arguing
> > against modern science.
>
> Seems that decades old information is still valid. Nothing
> at talk.origins contradicts it.
Did you even read the links provided?
Kermit
What's the problem? Not only are fossils more rare as you look in older
strata, but the small, soft-bodied organisms do not (and never did)
fossilize well. Why are you quoting some idiot who criticizes
evolutionary science by picking on Darwin? Do you criticize astronomy
or physics by nitpicking Galileo?
Modern evolutionary science contradicts Darwin on a number of points.
One is in thinking that preCambrian fossils should be more common.
Considering their nature and age, it would be astonishing if they were.
Another area is in genetics. Darwin thought that inherited
characteristics were non-granular and blended; they are not.
Kermit
sharon
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> swarmed with living creatures" (Excerpt A, p. 83). In the
> fossil record, however, most of the major animal phyla
> appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological
> period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that
> they branched off from a common ancestor.
Google "vendobionts". They filled Darwin's gap.
Jerry Sparks
And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr? The term
"explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
Moreover, although many of the current phyla are represented in the
Cambrain strata, the species that represented these groups were nothing
like the ones that exist today. The Cambrian were by and large marine
organisms. Where were the mammals, where were the birds, where were the
reptiles? Where is your point? The Cambrian explosion poses some
interesting questions. However, none of them lead to evidence against
evolution. It certainly doesn't provide positive evidence for
intelligent design or a supernatural creator.
Matt Silberstein
<Ken...@comcast.net> in <fqKdnUULA60HX8XY...@comcast.com>
wrote:
Understand that the "fully formed" vertebrates are represented by
_pinka_, a small worm looking animal. Creationists see a vast
difference between humans and chimps, but somehow see whales and
sharks and penguins as worm-like.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
John Harshman
Nope. Wrong on several counts. First, the majority of animal phyla have
either no fossil record at all or an extremely bad one, and none of
these are known from the Cambrian at all. Second, most phyla that do
appear in the Cambrian are not known from the beginning, but from around
15-20 million years after the beginning. A few other phyla appear before
the Cambrian, up to 30 million years earlier. So you see that already we
have a range of 50 million years for that "sudden" appearance. Third,
they aren't all "fully formed". In fact most Cambrian representatives of
modern phyly are members of "stem groups", with some but not all
characteristics that unite the living groups. Those that belong to the
"fully formed" modern phyla are almost all not members of modern
classes. And there are only one or two modern orders represented at all.
There are also quite a few fossils that have been suggested as uniting
more than one phylum, i.e. falling into the stem groups of multiple
phyla. Look at halkieriids, wiwaxiids, "lobopods", yunnanozoans, etc.
> Darwin was aware
> of this, acknowledging in The Origin of Species that
> "several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom
> suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks."
Fortunately, we know a lot more than we did in Darwin's day, and this is
no longer true.
> He
> called this a "serious" problem which "at present must
> remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid
> argument against the views here entertained" (Excerpt A, pp.
> 82, 85). (A) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth
> Edition (New York: D, Appleton, 1890), Chapter X. Darwin
> remained convinced that his theory was true, however. He
> speculated that ancestors of the different phyla had not
> been found because the fossil record was imperfect. If, as
> it seemed, rocks before the Cambrian had been deformed by
> heat and pressure, or eroded away, then fossil ancestors
> might never be found. He acknowledged, though, that he
> really had "no satisfactory answer" to the problem (Excerpt
> A, p. 84). "
And it turns out that Darwin was right, and that more fossil discoveries
have done much to resolve his dilemma.
Kevin Anthoney
Lucifer
Uhm...in a word, bollocks. Evolution acn move very fast, also, some
exceedingly old fossils hint at more complex precambrian fossils than
were previously known.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Matt Silberstein
<ejsp...@tvscable.com> in
<1163451450.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr? The term
>"explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
And is misleading. The Cambrian took about 20 million years. That is
about 1/700 of the history of the Earth. About the relationship
between a year and a half a day.
[snip]
Lucifer
I doubt Royboy can actually read...
sharon
John Harshman wrote:
> > Darwin was aware
> > of this, acknowledging in The Origin of Species that
> > "several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom
> > suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks."
>
> Fortunately, we know a lot more than we did in Darwin's day, and this is
> no longer true.
> have done much to resolve his dilemma.
But it needs to be said, earliest life forms were mostly soft-bodied,
so they simply didn't fossilize.
Turner
Moron, did you even read the links that I pasted? They both offer quite
a substantial amount of evidence, plus references, to show that the
assumption that the Cambrian Explosion is evidence against
evolution/for creationism is misguided. What part(s) of them did you
not understand?
The decades old information isn't correct, I'm afraid. Darwin lived
over a century ago, and therefore he does not speak for all of
evolutionary biology. That's why you're likely to encounter opposition
if you use the term "Darwinism" in this group, especially if you misuse
it, as most creationists do, to imply some sort of religious adherence.
Science progresses, and a hundred and fifty years is a long time to
make scientific discoveries. Darwin was certainly an extremely clever
chap, but he wasn't infallible, and he was wrong about a lot of things.
Furthermore, I think you should stop plagiarizing this rubbish off
other sites. We've all heard it before, so how about reading some
proper information rather than the tripe and propaganda that you
usually post here?
John Harshman
Not quite true or we wouldn't know about them at all. Better to say that
the conditions for their preservation were much rarer than the
conditions needed to preserve organisms with mineralized skeletons. And
in fact one theory about the Cambrian explosion is that it was a sudden
increase in the number of species that had mineralized skeletons,
perhaps itself stimulated by the origin of macrophagy (predation by and
on multicellular organisms); a sort of arms race among predators and prey.
sharon
John Harshman wrote:
> > But it needs to be said, earliest life forms were mostly soft-bodied,
> > so they simply didn't fossilize.
> >
> Not quite true or we wouldn't know about them at all. Better to say that
> the conditions for their preservation were much rarer than the
> conditions needed to preserve organisms with mineralized skeletons. And
Oh you are right. Perhaps its that stroke I had that affected my
ability to communicate. But, you understood the point I was attempting
to convey.
> in fact one theory about the Cambrian explosion is that it was a sudden
> increase in the number of species that had mineralized skeletons,
> perhaps itself stimulated by the origin of macrophagy (predation by and
> on multicellular organisms); a sort of arms race among predators and prey.
Very good explanation.. such as pikaia, and eventually we, the
vertebrates. Of course, pikaia itself, as "the" direct ancestor to
humans, is still in speculation, right?
Collin DuCrane
Darwin's Blackbox by Behe adresses this as "Irreducible Complexity"
Free Lunch
"Collin DuCrane" <obser...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1163458698....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
And Behe has been unable to provide a single example of it.
Not only that, but the IDiots refuse to even try.
Roy Jose Lorr
Absolutely.
Roy Jose Lorr
Takes all kinds.
Roy Jose Lorr
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>
>>Turner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Srawrafd57gJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fid%3D119+Cambrian+Explosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11
>>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Yup, Darwin acknowledged that the Cambrian Explosion seems to pose a
>>>problem to the evolutionary tree of life. However, that was 150 years
>>>ago, and scientists have since made much more progress and realise that
>>>it doesn't contradict evolutionary science.
>>>
>>>See
>>>www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html and
>>>www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
>>>
>>>Using decades-old information is not going to help you much in arguing
>>>against modern science.
>>
>>Seems that decades old information is still valid. Nothing
>>at talk.origins contradicts it.
>
>
> Moron, did you even read the links that I pasted? They both offer quite
> a substantial amount of evidence, plus references, to show that the
> assumption that the Cambrian Explosion is evidence against
> evolution/for creationism is misguided. What part(s) of them did you
> not understand?
I understand frantic darwinist squirming when I see it.
>
> The decades old information isn't correct, I'm afraid. Darwin lived
> over a century ago, and therefore he does not speak for all of
> evolutionary biology. That's why you're likely to encounter opposition
> if you use the term "Darwinism" in this group, especially if you misuse
> it, as most creationists do, to imply some sort of religious adherence.
> Science progresses, and a hundred and fifty years is a long time to
> make scientific discoveries. Darwin was certainly an extremely clever
> chap, but he wasn't infallible, and he was wrong about a lot of things.
Ok. I understand frantic "neo-darwinist" squirming when I
see it.
>
> Furthermore, I think you should stop plagiarizing this rubbish off
> other sites. We've all heard it before, so how about reading some
> proper information rather than the tripe and propaganda that you
> usually post here?
You mean like the 'tripe and propaganda' evolutionists post
from talk.origins?
Roy Jose Lorr
LOL
Roy Jose Lorr
> And it turns out that Darwin was right, and that more fossil discoveries
> have done much to resolve his dilemma.
LOL
Roy Jose Lorr
Right, Its all speculation.
Roy Jose Lorr
Shussh... don't want to scramble any more neo-darwinist
minds than is necessary.
Roy Jose Lorr
Simple mindedness suits you.
John Harshman
Well, no. Pikaia had no mineralized skeleton, and was almost certainly a
plankton feeder, so has no part in that particular story.
> Of course, pikaia itself, as "the" direct ancestor to
> humans, is still in speculation, right?
>
Yes, and will always be. It can only be confirmed not to be the
ancestor, never to be the ancestor. There is no way to tell whether any
fossil is the direct ancestor of anything. (Excluding pregnant
ichthyosaurs being the direct ancestors of their babies about to be born
when they died, and such.)
Lee Oswald Ving
news:XMmdnWv7BfdmnMTY...@comcast.com:
IOW, you actually understand you don't have a leg to stand on, and don't
have the cojones to simply admit you're wrong.
<chuckle> Pathetic little git. All your heros failed you.
<snip>
Free Lunch
I don't want to overestimate my audience.
Free Lunch
None are being scrambled. We all know that Behe blew it.
John Harshman
Have a laugh if you like, but I see you can't respond to the points I
made in any real way.
Inez
He can't hear you over the voice of his brain tumor.
Roy Jose Lorr
Fantasizing is good.
Friar Broccoli
True, but unlike creationism, it is speculation that is
consistent with what we see in the fossil record.
drdach
Jerry Sparks wrote:
> And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr?
The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
all your hand waving won't make go away.
> The term
> "explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
> Moreover, although many of the current phyla are represented in the
> Cambrain strata, the species that represented these groups were nothing
> like the ones that exist today. The Cambrian were by and large marine
> organisms. Where were the mammals, where were the birds, where were the
> reptiles? Where is your point?
The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
all your hand waving won't make go away.
> The Cambrian explosion poses some
> interesting questions.
Just a large spear through the middle of your dogma.
> However, none of them lead to evidence against evolution.
Hand waving again?
> It certainly doesn't provide positive evidence for
> intelligent design or a supernatural creator.
Lets knock down a straw man here. The evidence for the creator is on my
Jump Drive. His name is Klaatu.
regards from drdach
sharon
John Harshman wrote:
> >>
> >>Not quite true or we wouldn't know about them at all. Better to say that
> >>the conditions for their preservation were much rarer than the
> >>conditions needed to preserve organisms with mineralized skeletons. And
> >
> >
> >>increase in the number of species that had mineralized skeletons,
> >>perhaps itself stimulated by the origin of macrophagy (predation by and
> >>on multicellular organisms); a sort of arms race among predators and prey.
> >
> > Very good explanation.. such as pikaia, and eventually we, the
> > vertebrates.
>
> Well, no. Pikaia had no mineralized skeleton, and was almost certainly a
> plankton feeder, so has no part in that particular story.
> > Oh you are right. Perhaps its that stroke I had that affected my
> > ability to communicate. But, you understood the point I was attempting
> > to convey.
Did you?
Notochords were the first "backbones", as well, serving as support
structures in chordates that lacked a bony skeleton. The very first
vertebrates, such as Pikaia and Haikouicthys had only a notochord. This
is the reason the embryos of vertebrates have them today; embryonic
evolution often happens to follow a pattern similar to the ancestral
development of the modern animal's traits. Notochords were advantagous
to primitive fish-ancestors because they were a rigid structure for
muscle attachment, yet flexible enough to allow more movement than, for
example, the exoskeleton of the dominant animals of that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notochord
"Pikaia, an early ancestor of the chordates, is the first known animal
with a notocord."
The earliest known chordate or chordate-like fossils include the
conodonts (cone-toothed animals). Spinar describes the conodonts as
"eel-shaped animals, 4-20 cm long". "At the head end were a pair of
huge eyes, and a complex basket of teeth, consisting of 13 separate
elements that articulated together to make a flexible grasping and
tearing apparatus." The teeth had been discovered many years ago. But,
until recently, no fossil of the intact animal had been identified. In
1983, an extraordinarily well preserved fossil of the intact animal,
showing a slender soft-bodied animal, was found near Edinburgh,
Scotland. Since then, more conodont fossils have been found in Scotland
and South Africa. I'll show a plate (pg. 38) of a reconstruction of a
conodont animal. (Isn't it cute?)
The craniates, also known as the vertebrates, have particular
specialization in the region of the head, thus the name "craniata". We
believe that craniates first developed from their ancestors by neoteny.
http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/bil160/bil160goods/19_verts1.html
> >
> >
>
> > Of course, pikaia itself, as "the" direct ancestor to
> > humans, is still in speculation, right?
Or, I should have rather said, direct ancestor to all vertebrate
animals. It's speculation, but good reason for now, to speculate.
Lucifer
drdach wrote:
> Jerry Sparks wrote:
> > And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr?
>
> The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
> all your hand waving won't make go away.
>
> > The term
> > "explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
> > Moreover, although many of the current phyla are represented in the
> > Cambrain strata, the species that represented these groups were nothing
> > like the ones that exist today. The Cambrian were by and large marine
> > organisms. Where were the mammals, where were the birds, where were the
> > reptiles? Where is your point?
>
> The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
> all your hand waving won't make go away.
>
> > The Cambrian explosion poses some
> > interesting questions.
>
> Just a large spear through the middle of your dogma.
>
> > However, none of them lead to evidence against evolution.
>
> Hand waving again?
The appearance of the Cambrian Explosion is rather exaggerated by the
existence of the Burgess Shale, and several other superb deposits.
Evidence seems to suggest it wasn't all that sudden, but the
combination of the emergence of hard shelled creatures and several
exceptional preservation episodes has created that appearance. The
cambrian explosion is hardly more dramatic than the recovery of like
post Permian-Triassic mass extinction.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Free Lunch
"drdach" <drd...@drdach.com> wrote in
<1163469500.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Jerry Sparks wrote:
>> And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr?
>
>The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
>all your hand waving won't make go away.
You have demonstrated a great lack of knowledge of the history of life
on earth.
>> The term
>> "explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
>> Moreover, although many of the current phyla are represented in the
>> Cambrain strata, the species that represented these groups were nothing
>> like the ones that exist today. The Cambrian were by and large marine
>> organisms. Where were the mammals, where were the birds, where were the
>> reptiles? Where is your point?
>
>The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
>all your hand waving won't make go away.
Repeating this mistaken claim will not make it true.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>>Not quite true or we wouldn't know about them at all. Better to say that
>>>>the conditions for their preservation were much rarer than the
>>>>conditions needed to preserve organisms with mineralized skeletons. And
>>>
>>>
>>>>in fact one theory about the Cambrian explosion is that it was a sudden
>>>>increase in the number of species that had mineralized skeletons,
>>>>perhaps itself stimulated by the origin of macrophagy (predation by and
>>>>on multicellular organisms); a sort of arms race among predators and prey.
>>>
>>>Very good explanation.. such as pikaia, and eventually we, the
>>>vertebrates.
>>
>>Well, no. Pikaia had no mineralized skeleton, and was almost certainly a
>>plankton feeder, so has no part in that particular story.
>
>
>>>Oh you are right. Perhaps its that stroke I had that affected my
>>>ability to communicate. But, you understood the point I was attempting
>>>to convey.
Uh-oh, she's gone into regurgitation mode. Batten down the hatches.
> Did you?
>
> Notochords were the first "backbones", as well, serving as support
> structures in chordates that lacked a bony skeleton. The very first
> vertebrates, such as Pikaia and Haikouicthys had only a notochord. This
> is the reason the embryos of vertebrates have them today; embryonic
> evolution often happens to follow a pattern similar to the ancestral
> development of the modern animal's traits. Notochords were advantagous
> to primitive fish-ancestors because they were a rigid structure for
> muscle attachment, yet flexible enough to allow more movement than, for
> example, the exoskeleton of the dominant animals of that time.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notochord
>
> "Pikaia, an early ancestor of the chordates, is the first known animal
> with a notocord."
Not true any more, since Pikaia is known from the Middle Cambrian
Burgess Shale, while several other chordates, including Haikouichthys,
are known from the Early Cambrian Chengjiang.
> The earliest known chordate or chordate-like fossils include the
> conodonts (cone-toothed animals). Spinar describes the conodonts as
> "eel-shaped animals, 4-20 cm long". "At the head end were a pair of
> huge eyes, and a complex basket of teeth, consisting of 13 separate
> elements that articulated together to make a flexible grasping and
> tearing apparatus." The teeth had been discovered many years ago. But,
> until recently, no fossil of the intact animal had been identified. In
> 1983, an extraordinarily well preserved fossil of the intact animal,
> showing a slender soft-bodied animal, was found near Edinburgh,
> Scotland. Since then, more conodont fossils have been found in Scotland
> and South Africa. I'll show a plate (pg. 38) of a reconstruction of a
> conodont animal. (Isn't it cute?)
Conodonts are actually not just chordates, but craniates/vertebrates.
> The craniates, also known as the vertebrates, have particular
> specialization in the region of the head, thus the name "craniata". We
> believe that craniates first developed from their ancestors by neoteny.
> http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/bil160/bil160goods/19_verts1.html
>
>
>
>>>
>
>>>Of course, pikaia itself, as "the" direct ancestor to
>>>humans, is still in speculation, right?
>
> Or, I should have rather said, direct ancestor to all vertebrate
> animals. It's speculation, but good reason for now, to speculate.
Not really. It can never, ever be anything more than speculation. We
have no way, even theoretically, of ever knowing. (Unless you can
perfect that time-o-scope you've been working on, and watch who mates
with whom for 500 million years or so.)
Given the poor fossilization potential of primitve chordates, it seems
extremely unlikely that we have a good sample of their diversity, or
that we will ever sample a true ancestor of all vertebrates. Nor, if we
did, would we be able to tell it from most of the non-ancestors.
Inez
<snip>
> Fantasizing is good.
...and this as been another edition of "Fundamentalist Christianity in
Three Words or Less."
r norman
wrote:
Please believe, Sharon, that I am taking your answer seriously. You
deal with a technical subject and I am responding about technical
details. Nothing personal. Unfortunately Wikipedia has some things
wrong here. Wikipedia is usually quite trustworthy, but not always.
The backbone or vertebral column is a very different structure from
the notochord. All chordates have a notochord, at least at some point
in early development. Vertebrates have something else, a vertebral
column or spinal column. In many vertebrates, the cells forming the
notochord tend to break down and their place is taken by the quite
different adjacent cells that form the spinal column. In that sense,
the vertebra "replace" the notochord although some vestiges of
notochord persist. Many people misinterpret the way that Wikipedia
(and other sources) describes things as believing that the
"replacement" is an evolutionary change so that the vertebral or
spinal column is a evolutionary descendant of an ancestral notochord.
Animals without a vertebral column are not vertebrates, plain and
simple. There is no indication that Pikaia and Haikouicthys had
anything like a vertebral column. They cannot be vertebrates. If
they are chordates they may be ancestral to vertebrates or more
probably are offshoots from an even earlier chordate that is ancestral
to vertebrates.
sharon
John, would you please provide a "news release" or at least, pub-med or
springerlink... anything for the information you've given? Thanks in
advance.
Bobby Bryant
Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Srawrafd57gJ:www.discovery.org/ 8<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The astute reader would have taken that as a warning that a tsunami
of b.s. is about to hit their newsreader.
a) Notice that little "most".
b) Change "at the beginning" to "by the beginning". (That two-letter
change reveals all the millions of years that the writer was trying to
sweep under the rug.)
c) We don't expect much fossil evidence for the soft-tissued organisms
that lived that long ago.
d) If you understood common descent at the most rudimentary level, you
would be utterly unsurprised that the branches closest to the root of
the tree (e.g., phyla) would be the farthest back in time.
e) There have been a number of mass extinctions (one catching 90% of
our colleagues, IIRC), and we've seen re-radiations after every single
one of them (except the one that has just started).
f) This old canard is more appropriate for the low-brow lies of the
Hams and Hovinds than for the high-brow lies of the Discovery Institute
Fellows.
> Darwin was aware of this, acknowledging in The Origin of Species
> that "several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly
> appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." He called this a
> "serious" problem which "at present must remain inexplicable; and
> may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here
> entertained" (Excerpt A, pp. 82, 85). (A) Charles Darwin, The
> Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (New York: D, Appleton, 1890),
> Chapter X. Darwin remained convinced that his theory was true,
> however. He speculated that ancestors of the different phyla had not
> been found because the fossil record was imperfect. If, as it
> seemed, rocks before the Cambrian had been deformed by heat and
> pressure, or eroded away, then fossil ancestors might never be
> found. He acknowledged, though, that he really had "no satisfactory
> answer" to the problem (Excerpt A, p. 84). "
a) How much of the Cambrian-era sea floor is now available for inspection?
b) How much progress have we made in the past century and a half?
c) Can't you do better than that?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> writes:
> I understand frantic darwinist squirming when I see it.
From the posts I've read in this thread and others, you don't seem
to understand much of anything at all.
Bobby Bryant
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> On 13 Nov 2006 12:57:30 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Jerry Sparks"
> <ejsp...@tvscable.com> in
> <1163451450.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr? The term
>>"explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
>
> about 1/700 of the history of the Earth. About the relationship
> between a year and a half a day.
And everyone knows you can't evolve people from monkeys in half a day!
sharon
r norman wrote:
>>
> Please believe, Sharon, that I am taking your answer seriously. You
> deal with a technical subject and I am responding about technical
> details. Nothing personal.
Please believe me, that I "suspect" sarcasm in your responses, and the
only thing I can truly appreciate at this time is an actual credible
link to whatever you are claiming. Feel free to log on to Wikipedia and
edit to your heart's content. *smile*
<snip>
Bobby Bryant
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:48:08 -0800, in talk.origins
> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote in
> <XMmdnWH7BffMmcTY...@comcast.com>:
>>Simple mindedness suits you.
>
> I don't want to overestimate my audience.
That's OK, I'm following along without too much trouble.
Rusty Sites
> sharon wrote:
>
>>
>>> swarmed with living creatures" (Excerpt A, p. 83). In the
>>> fossil record, however, most of the major animal phyla
>>> appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological
>>> period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that
>>> they branched off from a common ancestor.
>>
>>
>
> LOL
>
Yeah! Imagine somebody thinking you would actually Google something.
sharon
SEMANTIC TRICKS
"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be
trusted in large ones either."
Albert Einstein
Einstein may have been left behind in Quantum Mechanics, but he is
endeared in the hearts of millions, and future generations to come, as
"honest" in matters of science. He is a cultural icon! The rest are
doomed to be forgotten in the already dusty, overcrowded annals of
history.
I notice a couple or three on this newsgroup who habitually invoke
untruthful (often personal) arguments, argument fallacies, and YES,
EVEN TRICKS, in hope of achieving "dishonest behavior" from others who
are otherwise honest individuals. They are eager to drag others down to
their ridiculously deceitful level.
-------------------------------------
Now, if either of you had degrees in Paleontology and were in fact,
consistently impersonal in your character and judgment, which includes
equally straightforward and honest with everyone in equal measure... a
little more like me (often mistaken as "stupid" or even "dumb" or
perhaps "nieve"), I might take you at face value for your word,
however, both of you have consistently chaffed with abrasive or
sarcastic attitudes. Therefore, I have no reason to believe a thing
either of you say.
Integrity means more than both of your degrees put together. Do you
understand where I am coming from?
John Harshman
I don't read news releases, generally. I have citations, but few paleo
papers make it to PubMed. Here are a few relevant papers:
Budd, G.E. & Jensen, S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of
the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 75, 253-295 (2000).
Chen, J.-Y., Dzik, J., Edgecomb, G.D., Ramsköld, L. & Zhou, G.-Q. A
possible Early Cambrian chordate. Nature 377, 720-722 (1995).
Shu, D.-G., et al. Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China. Nature
402, 42-46 (1999).
Briggs, D.E.G., Clarkson, E.N.K. & Aldridge, R.J. The conodont animal.
Lethaia 16, 1-14 (1983).
Gabbott, S.E., Aldridge, R.J. & Theron, J.N. A giant conodont with
preserved muscle tissue from the Upper Ordovician of South Africa.
Nature 374, 800-803 (1995).
Donoghue, P.C.J., Forey, P.L. & Aldridge, R.J. Conodont affinity and
chordate phylogeny. Biological Reviews 75, 191-251 (2000).
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for references on, but those
might cover it.
sharon
John Harshman wrote:
<snipping useless rubbish>
links.
r norman
wrote:
I don't have the infinite patience of John Harshman to continue
dealing with unreasonable people. I didn't say you were wrong; I said
that Wikipedia was wrong. There is obviously nothing more that I can
say about anything you post that you could ever accept.
Carry on.
John Baker
>
>Jerry Sparks wrote:
>> And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr?
>
>The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
>all your hand waving won't make go away.
The "Cambrian Explosion" was more like a slow fizzle and, while it's a
very interesting phenomenon that poses nearly as many questions as it
answers, it really isn't a problem at all. It may have been a bit of a
mystery twenty years ago, but things change. We learn. Your (and
Roy's) ignorance of the facts is the real problem. But it's your
problem, not evolution's.
>
>> The term
>> "explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
>> Moreover, although many of the current phyla are represented in the
>> Cambrain strata, the species that represented these groups were nothing
>> like the ones that exist today. The Cambrian were by and large marine
>> organisms. Where were the mammals, where were the birds, where were the
>> reptiles? Where is your point?
>
>The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
>all your hand waving won't make go away.
See above.
>
>> The Cambrian explosion poses some
>> interesting questions.
>
>Just a large spear through the middle of your dogma.
No. Just the culmination of a number of evolutionary lines that had
begun in the late Archaeozoic. You see, contrary to what *your* dogma
"teaches", complex organisms didn't just suddenly appear out of
nowhere with no possible explanation as to how they got there. We
indeed can trace the lineage of much of the Middle Cambrian fauna back
to well before the Cambrian began. An increase in global mean
temperature during the early Cambrian resulted in a tropical climate
over most of the planet, with little seasonal variation. This in turn
allowed the proliferation of the earliest photosynthetic organisms.
The resulting rapid rise (geologically speaking) in atmospheric oxygen
levels jump-started the evolutionary process (more oxygen means more
available energy), but the main lineages had already existed for
millions of years before the so-called "Cambrian Explosion", which,
incidentally, actually lasted nearly 30 million years, not the mere
five million or so that evolution deniers generally claim. Hardly an
explosion by any stretch of the imagination. It really isn't a problem
for evolution. It's only your ignorance (or deliberate denial) of the
facts that makes it appear so.
You might want to duck, son. That spear is actually headed in *your*
direction. And it looks mighty sharp.
>
>> However, none of them lead to evidence against evolution.
>
>Hand waving again?
Yes. Waving goodbye. Come back when you know what you're talking
about.
>
>> It certainly doesn't provide positive evidence for
>> intelligent design or a supernatural creator.
>
>Lets knock down a straw man here.
No, just send him to ask the wizard for a brain.
>The evidence for the creator is on my
>Jump Drive. His name is Klaatu.
And maybe you should go with him....
>
>regards from drdach
sharon
> Integrity means more than both of your degrees put together. Do you
> understand where I am coming from?
I will be back in a few months maybe. I have so much work to do, it's
overwhelming. Hopefully you'll both have had time to think about what
I've said?
Try learning something from Dana Tweedy (if you have the slightest clue
to what I'm talking about? Tweedy is ideal, while Glenn is Pariah)...
it's the most crucial form of education, but you don't get it from
formal courses in college or university.
topmind
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> > > Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Yup, Darwin acknowledged that the Cambrian Explosion seems to pose a
> > > problem to the evolutionary tree of life. However, that was 150 years
> > > ago, and scientists have since made much more progress and realise that
> > > it doesn't contradict evolutionary science.
> > >
> > > See
> > > www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html and
> > > www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
> > >
> > > Using decades-old information is not going to help you much in arguing
> > > against modern science.
> >
> > Seems that decades old information is still valid. Nothing
> > at talk.origins contradicts it.
>
> What's the problem? Not only are fossils more rare as you look in older
> strata, but the small, soft-bodied organisms do not (and never did)
> fossilize well.
Soft-bodies did make fossils before the Cambrian. Spriggina, for
example, are thought to all be soft-bodied because they are "bent" into
different orientations. And there are a fair number of such fossils.
The problem is that such precambrian critters are difficult to match to
cambrian ones.
Even in Gauld's "Wonderful Life", he speculates that such precambrian
animals were a "dead end" path that used external surface area for
digestion instead of an internal digestive track. They may have simply
crawled onto static life (plant-like things) and digested it externally
(contact points). Either way, they don't seem to be a clear path to the
cambrian groups.
It is possible that these died off because in-place digestion makes it
hard to run from preditors. Thus, they may have all become extinct
because bite-and-run's were better able to get away from a faster breed
of preditors.
Of course, this is all speculation. The Cambrian Explosion is still a
big stumper, and the soft-bodied argument does not hold much water.
I am puzzled by #6:
6. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Using
number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity
has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the
Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).
How can they count cell types in mineralized fossils? Are they using
genetic mapping instead?
> Why are you quoting some idiot who criticizes
> evolutionary science by picking on Darwin? Do you criticize astronomy
> or physics by nitpicking Galileo?
>
> Modern evolutionary science contradicts Darwin on a number of points.
> One is in thinking that preCambrian fossils should be more common.
> Considering their nature and age, it would be astonishing if they were.
>
> Another area is in genetics. Darwin thought that inherited
> characteristics were non-granular and blended; they are not.
>
> Kermit
-T-
John Harshman
Sigh. There are these thing called "libraries" where you can go
(physically) to find things called "books" and "journals". Even in this
advanced modern age, most science is actually still published in such
places. Some of it also finds its way onto the web, unfortunately
sometimes in garbled or outdated form. Now, old-fashioned as I am, I
choose to think that these original scientific papers are not "useless
rubbish". If you prefer second-hand, web sources, you are running a risk
that I don't care to run. If you want to find a reliable source for all
this information, you can visit a library. Surely that's within your
capabilities.
topmind
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:07:45 -0800, in alt.atheism , Roy Jose Lorr
> <Ken...@comcast.net> in <fqKdnUULA60HX8XY...@comcast.com>
> wrote:
> Understand that the "fully formed" vertebrates are represented by
> _pinka_, a small worm looking animal. Creationists see a vast
> difference between humans and chimps, but somehow see whales and
> sharks and penguins as worm-like.
>
I think you mean "Pikaia". It had no vertebrates and no bones, but a
simple notochord. It is thought to be an acestor (or close-by relative)
to fish partly because of the zig-zag muscle patterns that fish still
have today.
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> http://www.beawitness.org
> http://www.darfurgenocide.org
> http://www.savedarfur.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
-T-
John Harshman
Me? No. I'd say more but you would probably think it was some kind of trick.
sharon
> Integrity means more than both of your degrees put together. Do you
> understand where I am coming from?
Try learning something from Dana Tweedy (if you have the slightest clue
to what I'm talking about? Tweedy is an ideal example of how to act
toward others, while Glenn is a
P A R I A H
a pariah.........a pariah
P A pariah........a pariaH P
A A Pariah.......a pariAH A
R A PAriah......a parIAH R
I A PARiah....a paRIAH I
A A PARIah. .a pARIAH A
H A PARIAh..a PARIAH H
A PARIAH A PARIAH
P H
A A
R I
a pimple on the ass of science.
semantic tricks, mind games, argument fallacies, lies, amoral,
everything rotten 'n decay
a pariah... as in spreads nothing but conflict, drivel and confusion.
Good for absolutely nothing, and I mean NOTHING, except putting a stain
on science. You guys think that's the norm, because PRICKS RULE on this
newsgroup.
it's the most crucial form of education, but you don't get it from
formal courses in college or university.
nobody likes an asshole.
Free Lunch
bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote in
<ofa6h.10213$yl4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>In article <v53il2d6qv3pvufjf...@4ax.com>,
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:48:08 -0800, in talk.origins
>> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <XMmdnWH7BffMmcTY...@comcast.com>:
>
>>>Simple mindedness suits you.
>>
>> I don't want to overestimate my audience.
>
>That's OK, I'm following along without too much trouble.
I guess UT's getting better.
bullpup
"sharon" <sharon1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163477332.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Integrity means more than both of your degrees put together. Do you
> > understand where I am coming from?
>
> Try learning something from Dana Tweedy (if you have the slightest clue
>
> to what I'm talking about? Tweedy is an ideal example of how to act
> toward others, while Glenn is a
>
> P A R I A H
> a pariah.........a pariah
> P A pariah........a pariaH P
> A A Pariah.......a pariAH A
> R A PAriah......a parIAH R
> I A PARiah....a paRIAH I
> A A PARIah. .a pARIAH A
> H A PARIAh..a PARIAH H
> A PARIAH A PARIAH
>
> P H
> A A
> R I
>
> a pimple on the ass of science.
>
> semantic tricks, mind games, argument fallacies, lies, amoral,
> everything rotten 'n decay
>
> a pariah... as in spreads nothing but conflict, drivel and confusion.
> Good for absolutely nothing, and I mean NOTHING, except putting a stain
> on science.
Don't hold back. Let Glenn know how your *really* feel.
> You guys think that's the norm, because PRICKS RULE on this
> newsgroup.
They do? Crap, that's revolting.
>
> it's the most crucial form of education, but you don't get it from
> formal courses in college or university.
>
> nobody likes an asshole.
Here here! (Boikat belches then scratches his ass) You tell 'em sister!
Boikat
I'm just some guy, y'know...
>
John Harshman
All sarcasm and irony aside, this is getting scary. Especially that
weird exercise with the word "pariah". I don't know if you're on any
meds or have been diagnosed with any treatable psychiatric condition,
but regardless you should at this point stop and think carefully about
whether you are behaving in a rational way, and get control of yourself.
I mean this seriously, not as any sort of insult game.
Roy Jose Lorr
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>>sharon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But it needs to be said, earliest life forms were mostly soft-bodied,
>>>>>so they simply didn't fossilize.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not quite true or we wouldn't know about them at all. Better to say that
>>>>the conditions for their preservation were much rarer than the
>>>>conditions needed to preserve organisms with mineralized skeletons. And
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh you are right. Perhaps its that stroke I had that affected my
>>>ability to communicate. But, you understood the point I was attempting
>>>to convey.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>in fact one theory about the Cambrian explosion is that it was a sudden
>>>>increase in the number of species that had mineralized skeletons,
>>>>perhaps itself stimulated by the origin of macrophagy (predation by and
>>>>on multicellular organisms); a sort of arms race among predators and prey.
>>>
>>>
>>>Very good explanation.. such as pikaia, and eventually we, the
>>>vertebrates. Of course, pikaia itself, as "the" direct ancestor to
>>>humans, is still in speculation, right?
>>
>>Right, Its all speculation.
>
>
> True, but unlike creationism, it is speculation that is
> consistent with what we see in the fossil record.
There's nothing in the fossil record that conclusively shows
one species changing into another.
Olrik
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Srawrafd57gJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fid%3D119+Cambrian+Explosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11
Any scientific problems with evolution theory will be resolved by
science, not by your particular brand of religion.
So go pray in your church, teach your children whatever you want,
worship your "god" to your heart's content, I don't care. Leave science
alone. You're not qualified to do anything about it, anyway.
Olrik
<snip trollish ignorance>
Roy Jose Lorr
Sorry to disappoint but I am not xian.
Roy Jose Lorr
> c) Can't you do better than that?
Its over, dearheart, live with it.
Roy Jose Lorr
> And everyone knows you can't evolve people from monkeys in half a day!
Or ever.
Roy Jose Lorr
> In article <XMmdnWv7BfdmnMTY...@comcast.com>,
> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>>I understand frantic darwinist squirming when I see it.
>
>
> From the posts I've read in this thread and others, you don't seem
> to understand much of anything at all.
Fantasizing is good.
Roy Jose Lorr
It's only your ignorance (or deliberate denial) of the
> facts that makes it appear so.
Its your blind religious faith in the evolution myth that is
the problem.
Roy Jose Lorr
When you come up with a valid definition of "vendobiont",
give me a jingle. BAGL
satyr
wrote:
>, however, most of the major animal phyla
>appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological
>period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that
>they branched off from a common ancestor.
And when did this Cambrian Explosion occur? 500 million years ago?
Doesn't that kind of blow your whole 6000-year-old creation theory to
shit?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
Rusty Sites
John Wilkins
> In article <kunhl2l0do70p76q2...@4ax.com>,
> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > On 13 Nov 2006 12:57:30 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Jerry Sparks"
> > <ejsp...@tvscable.com> in
> > <1163451450.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> >>And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr? The term
> >>"explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
> >
> > And is misleading. The Cambrian took about 20 million years. That is
> > about 1/700 of the history of the Earth. About the relationship
> > between a year and a half a day.
>
> And everyone knows you can't evolve people from monkeys in half a day!
You can't even build an empire in a single day!
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
johac
Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Srawrafd57gJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/vie
> wDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fid%3D119+Cambrian+Explosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=
> 11
>
Nice cut and paste job.
If you would like to learn something about the pre- and post Cambrian
world may I suggest a book by Andrew Knoll, "Life on a Young Planet".
It's deals with science, not dogma.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Jerry Sparks wrote:
>> And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr?
>
>The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
>all your hand waving won't make go away.
>
>> The term
>> "explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
>> Moreover, although many of the current phyla are represented in the
>> Cambrain strata, the species that represented these groups were nothing
>> like the ones that exist today. The Cambrian were by and large marine
>> organisms. Where were the mammals, where were the birds, where were the
>> reptiles? Where is your point?
>
>The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
>all your hand waving won't make go away.
It has not been a problem for some time.
[snip more of his usual rubbish]
--
Bob.
Wakboth
Azaliah
<drd...@drdach.com> shouted thusly:
>Jerry Sparks wrote:
>> And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr?
>
>The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
>all your hand waving won't make go away.
>
>> The term
>> "explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
>> Moreover, although many of the current phyla are represented in the
>> Cambrain strata, the species that represented these groups were nothing
>> like the ones that exist today. The Cambrian were by and large marine
>> organisms. Where were the mammals, where were the birds, where were the
>> reptiles? Where is your point?
>
>The point is that the Cambrian explosion is still a big problem that
>all your hand waving won't make go away.
Or, maybe it was "The Big Cambrian Implosion/Death".
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Free Lunch
Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote in
<KpSdnfCo5Jw1zsTY...@comcast.com>:
You are strongly motivated by your religious doctrines, not by your
understanding of science.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>
>>>sharon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Harshman wrote:
[snipping]
>>>>> in fact one theory about the Cambrian explosion is that it was a sudden
>>>>> increase in the number of species that had mineralized skeletons,
>>>>> perhaps itself stimulated by the origin of macrophagy (predation by and
>>>>> on multicellular organisms); a sort of arms race among predators and prey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very good explanation.. such as pikaia, and eventually we, the
>>>> vertebrates. Of course, pikaia itself, as "the" direct ancestor to
>>>> humans, is still in speculation, right?
>>>
>>> Right, Its all speculation.
>>
>>
>> True, but unlike creationism, it is speculation that is
>> consistent with what we see in the fossil record.
>
> There's nothing in the fossil record that conclusively shows
> one species changing into another.
It is true that there is no example of an animal that is half
fish and half goat in the fossil record. That would be
inconsistent with evolution.
My original claim was that everything in the fossil record is
CONSISTENT with evolution.
By contrast many things in the fossil record are completely
inconsistent with creation 6,000 years ago. For example the
past existence of 15,000 species of trilobite, the last of
which went extinct 250 million years ago.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
geo...@hotmail.com
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
You're obviously not interested in saying anything meaningful (to be
honest, I'm convinced you know you're lying), but, just so I know, what
does BAGL mean? :)
Roy Jose Lorr
LOL
Roy Jose Lorr
Inez
I apologize. Feel free to substitute other forms of fundamentalism in
as needed.
Roy Jose Lorr
Rx: repeat ten times, four times daily for one year, at
breakfast, lunch, dinner, bedtime: 'I am not a pleasure unit'.
Roy Jose Lorr
....and this as been another edition of "Fundamentalist
Sciencism in Fourteen Words or Less."
Roy Jose Lorr
You mean like: fundamentalist Sciencism?
SeppoP
Probably not. You're just one of those garden variety brainless religionists. (shrug)
Not exactly news...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
CreateThis
wrote:
There's no such thing as that. I'm pretty sure she means
fundamentalist as in "rigidly asserts unsubstantiated religious dogma
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary" - you know, like the
rabid antievolutionary nonsense of fundamentalists like you.
CT
David Iain Greig
>
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>
>>>>problem to the evolutionary tree of life. However, that was 150 years
>>>>ago, and scientists have since made much more progress and realise that
>>>>it doesn't contradict evolutionary science.
>>>>
>>>>See
>>>>www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html and
>>>>www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
>>>>
>>>>Using decades-old information is not going to help you much in arguing
>>>>against modern science.
>>>
>>>Seems that decades old information is still valid. Nothing
>>>at talk.origins contradicts it.
>>
>>
>> Did you even read the links provided?
>
> Absolutely.
Did you read the documents they point to?
--D.
Gary Bohn
news:1hoszue.cghjma1f20n8kN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
> Bobby Bryant <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote:
>
>> In article <kunhl2l0do70p76q2...@4ax.com>,
>> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com>
>> writes:
>> > On 13 Nov 2006 12:57:30 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Jerry Sparks"
>> > <ejsp...@tvscable.com> in
>> > <1163451450.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>And what point are you trying to make Roy Jose Lorr? The term
>> >>"explosion" is used in a relative sense from a geologic time scale.
>> >
>> > And is misleading. The Cambrian took about 20 million years. That
>> > is about 1/700 of the history of the Earth. About the relationship
>> > between a year and a half a day.
>>
>> And everyone knows you can't evolve people from monkeys in half a
>> day!
>
> You can't even build an empire in a single day!
Depends on the game you're playing.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
Friar Broccoli
.
> Rx: repeat ten times, four times daily for one year, at
> breakfast, lunch, dinner, bedtime: 'I am not a pleasure unit'.
Sorry, you've completely lost me here.
By inflicting senseless suffering on yourself do you believe
you are:
1- Proving biblical creation?
2- Disproving the evidence for evolution?
Whatever it is, could you please clarify your reasoning?
Inez
If it makes you happy to say foolish things, I'll not stand in your way.
Wakboth
Roy Jose Lorr kirjoitti:
Do you have anything substantial to say, at all, on any subject?
-- Wakboth
Lucifer
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> >>sharon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>But it needs to be said, earliest life forms were mostly soft-bodied,
> >>>>>so they simply didn't fossilize.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Not quite true or we wouldn't know about them at all. Better to say that
> >>>>the conditions for their preservation were much rarer than the
> >>>>conditions needed to preserve organisms with mineralized skeletons. And
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh you are right. Perhaps its that stroke I had that affected my
> >>>ability to communicate. But, you understood the point I was attempting
> >>>to convey.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>in fact one theory about the Cambrian explosion is that it was a sudden
> >>>>increase in the number of species that had mineralized skeletons,
> >>>>perhaps itself stimulated by the origin of macrophagy (predation by and
> >>>>on multicellular organisms); a sort of arms race among predators and prey.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Very good explanation.. such as pikaia, and eventually we, the
> >>>vertebrates. Of course, pikaia itself, as "the" direct ancestor to
> >>>humans, is still in speculation, right?
> >>
> >>Right, Its all speculation.
> >
> >
> > True, but unlike creationism, it is speculation that is
> > consistent with what we see in the fossil record.
>
> There's nothing in the fossil record that conclusively shows
> one species changing into another.
No, that would be rather hard with only one fossil wouldn't it, shit
for brains. There are however, numerous sequences. Micraster is one of
my favourite (reg Echinoid to Irreg Echinoid. Just google Micraster
Evolution)
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Lucifer
You mean realism?
Roy Jose Lorr
Yes. Actually, I read them well before the links, long
before I started this thread.
Roy Jose Lorr
I am not a deprogrammer. You must deprogram yourself.
Roy Jose Lorr
You mean like: the rabid fundamentalist Sciencism groupies?