Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

The jointed limbs and eyes on many insects is a similar body plan to the jointed limbs and eyes on some of the Cambrian life.

Are the joints and eyes on modern insects coded using the same DNA as those in birds and mammals? Because that's the kind of claim you were making earlier and I'm pretty sure it runs counter to how reality actually works.

 

[KCfromNC]

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-animal-body-plans

Hey look, an article which contradicts your claim that the DNA for all modern features was present in pre-Cambrian organisms. Why is it that even your sources disagree with your conclusions?

 

[Derek Meyer]

I thought that DNA doesnt last long. Like with the blood cells that were suppose to be found in Dino bones people said that even blood cells and tissue shouldn't last millions of years let alone DNA which is much more sensitive to deterioration.

Actually, DNA that can be partially sequenced from fossils more than a million years old have been done.

I mean, we have found the remains of soft tissue in various hundreds of millions of year old fossils since the sixties.

The scientists have been demineralising the fossils and got the remains of soft tissue. No DNA on 65 million year old fossils could be sequenced so far. But, it is possible the more samples are investigated. Extracting DNA and sequencing it from a dino fossil 65 million years old will be huge scoop in science.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Deleted

 

[Derek Meyer]

As I keep saying similar body plans doesn't have to be the same animals.

So, you're saying that all Chordates have similar body plans and basically all Chordates are the same 'kind'?

 

[Derek Meyer]

I think if you check I said 10 million not 10 thousand years. The period varies from site to site. Some say 10 million and some say 20 million. Some even say 5 million. Either way in evolutionary terms its relatively short when you consider some of the time periods they have attributed to the evolution of other creatures. Evolution is suppose to be gradual and slow where it builds complex creatures through a trial and error process.

I would consider some creature evolving in 5 million years to be quite gradual...5 million years is a long, long time. Way more than 10 000 years.

 

[stevevw]

Hey look, an article which contradicts your claim that the DNA for all modern features was present in pre-Cambrian organisms. Why is it that even your sources disagree with your conclusions?

You'll have to be more specific then that.I cant see what you are talking about in the article. I posted the article to show that most of the modern body plans were around in the Cambrian period and thats exactly what it states.

 

[Derek Meyer]

You'll have to be more specific then that.I cant see what you are talking about in the article. I posted the article to show that most of the modern body plans were around in the Cambrian period and thats exactly what it states.

So, would all Chordata have the same body plan? Are all Chordata the same 'kind'?

 

[Derek Meyer]

I posted the article to show that most of the modern body plans were around in the Cambrian period and thats exactly what it states

So, Chordata appeared during the Cambrian and have the same body plans and therefore are of the same 'kind'?

 

[stevevw]

I would consider some creature evolving in 5 million years to be quite gradual...5 million years is a long, long time. Way more than 10 000 years.

Not in evolutionary terms. Considering that life has supposedly been around for 3.5 billion years plus, 5 million is a drop in the ocean. The point is that there is an sudden appearance of not just one type of creature. There was a great variety of features and these were unrelated to each other. So its as though many lines of different evolutionary paths/branches appeared around the same time. So there would have needed to be several paths that led up to this point to produce such variety in such a short time. Otherwise it would have taken eons. To produce a single line in evolution takes a long time let along multiple lines which will have dead ends and off shoots.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Not in evolutionary terms.

5 million years is a long time in biological terms. In geological terms its a blink of the eye. Are you still struggling to distinguish between the natural sciences of biology and geology? They're not the same, you know.

No matter in what terms you describe it anyway. I see that you still haven't answered the questions. A bit scared to answer them after your bravado? Here they are again:

So, would all Chordata have the same body plan? Are all Chordata the same 'kind'?

 

[KCfromNC]

You'll have to be more specific then that.I cant see what you are talking about in the article. I posted the article to show that most of the modern body plans were around in the Cambrian period and thats exactly what it states.

What, you missed the part about how researchers can track the evolution of novel features after that time?

And no fair asking others to be specific as you refuse to answer questions. You haven't been able to demonstrate that similar-looking features must share the same DNA, that specific modern structures evolved quickly during the Cambrian, that all of the DNA needed to code for every modern organism was present but deactivated in pre-Cambrian organisms, the idea that lottery winners are chosen by intelligent designers, or that there's any way to quantify levels of design. And that's just picking a few of your claims at random. How about you get to work on those before worrying about facts you've missed in an article you were quote-mining from?

 

[KCfromNC]

So, you're saying that all Chordates have similar body plans and basically all Chordates are the same 'kind'?

I'm guessing that we'll shortly be returning to the "if you ignore every way that they've changed then they haven't changed at all" type arguments. There must be some reason he's sticking to a vague and undefined term rather than showing specific examples of how, say, modern 4 chambered hearts or wings developed rapidly during the Cambrian.

There seems to be a pattern here - throw out a bunch of vague claims and then run away from the ones which were accidentally specific enough to be proven wrong. If you mix in enough selectively edited quotes from abstracts of papers you've never read, that might be enough to confuse someone into thinking there's some substance.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I'm guessing that we'll shortly be returning to the "if you ignore every way that they've changed then they haven't changed at all" type arguments. There must be some reason he's sticking to a vague and undefined term rather than showing specific examples of how, say, modern 4 chambered hearts or wings developed rapidly during the Cambrian.

There seems to be a pattern here - throw out a bunch of vague claims and then run away from the ones which were accidentally specific enough to be proven wrong. If you mix in enough selectively edited quotes from abstracts of papers you've never read, that might be enough to confuse someone into thinking there's some substance.

Yes, it's quite a common creationist tactic. Read something on a creationist website containing sciencey sounding words; pretend they know more about the subject than all those thousands of specialists; repeat it with quote mines and all somewhere.

Then run away when asked specific questions and repeat the same stuff somewhere else.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I'm guessing that we'll shortly be returning to the "if you ignore every way that they've changed then they haven't changed at all" type arguments.

Yeah, it seems like he's pretending that the fossils of the organisms with proto-notochords found during the Cambrian (perhaps examples of some early Chordata) had the same body plans as, say, lions. To me he doesn't seem to be very honest.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Isn't the papers on the modern day versions of Cambrian doing that.

That living things had a high level of genetic info even at the beginning of their existence.

Nope. The first "living things", as we know living things, were prokaryotes. Billions of years before the Cambrian.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I was trying to keep things within the verifiable parameters.

Nope, you didn't. You told untruths about the Cambrian explosion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nope. The first "living things", as we know living things, were prokaryotes. Billions of years before the Cambrian.

I'm curious which quantitative measure of genetic info he's using. I wonder if he's able to use that to measure the genetic info in some various modern organisms. I doubt he'd be up to it, since it would disprove his previous claims about all organisms having pre-existing genes for all features we see in modern creatures.

 

[stevevw]

What, you missed the part about how researchers can track the evolution of novel features after that time?

And no fair asking others to be specific as you refuse to answer questions. You haven't been able to demonstrate that similar-looking features must share the same DNA, that specific modern structures evolved quickly during the Cambrian, that all of the DNA needed to code for every modern organism was present but deactivated in pre-Cambrian organisms, the idea that lottery winners are chosen by intelligent designers, or that there's any way to quantify levels of design. And that's just picking a few of your claims at random. How about you get to work on those before worrying about facts you've missed in an article you were quote-mining from?

I have already shown this several times how scientists determine that similar features use similar genetic info. But you keep ignoring it. Even with unrelated creatures through convergent evolution have similar genetic info for similar features. There are many papers out that state the similar genes between animals or even humans and squids have similar genes for our eyes.

It seems that evolutionists will allow comparisons of features to make claims about the genetic makes of creatures to build their theory of transitional links. But you wont allow that same logic for showing the similarities with Cambrian body plans that are similar to modern day ones.

Squid and Humans Evolved the Same Eye
According to a new study, humans and cephalopods evolved the same eyes through tweaks to the same gene -- even though their eyes arose independently of ours.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/squid-and-humans-evolved-same-eye

 

[stevevw]

Nope, you didn't. You told untruths about the Cambrian explosion.

In what way did I tell untruths.