Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
caravelair said:that's exactly what i've been saying - either the order in genesis is falsified, or it is entirely unfalsifiable. take your pick. i vote for the former, but either way, it ain't science.
Jet Black said:yes. you are claiming basically that several taxonomic levels of plants - angiosperms, gymnosperms, vascular plants and their pollen along with their related fauna, just happen to have not fossilized for hundreds of millions of years. For hundreds of millions of years we are just unlucky to have not found a single example of Viridiplantae?
I could say the same about the mammals couldn't I? and if not, why not? Perhaps all the therapsids were wandering round in the precambrian just luckily managing to avoid fossilization along with the vascular plants, while some groups split off to form the mammals, ungulates and so on.
no no, I mean the earliest pollinating or polleniverous insects. to get away with your suggestion you would end up relying on rather alot of convergent evolution, since the soft bodied polliniverous insects would have to evolve to look as if they are the descendents of the hard bodied insects that have the appearange of being their ancestors. Unless of course there are a bunch of other soft bodied pollinating basal insects that we haven't actually found yet that died off for a few hundred million years though existed right up to the silurian when we first see the vascular plants, but then died off when the hard bodied insects (after all this time) finally got round to being pollinating and polleniverous insects?
Jet Black said:I would be fascinated to know if there was anything that would falsify genesis that wouldn't falsify evolution as well. though granted there is still this strange position in which the sun formed after life, meaning that the age of the sun must be off by about a billion years.
caravelair said:that's exactly what i've been saying - either the order in genesis is falsified, or it is entirely unfalsifiable. take your pick. i vote for the former, but either way, it ain't science.
you are missing all the intermediate groups again. Yes there were land plants, but no examples of vascular plants, which are a crown group. If we can't even find any vascular plants, then the odds of finding grasses, which are a subset of a subset of vascular plants are getting rather remote.Oncedeceived said:Land plants are found in the Ordovician around 500-440 myr, from the late precambrian that is only 44 million years to 140 million years. We find grasses present in dinosuar dung in the Cretaceous which is 146-65 myr but grasses themselves are not found until the Tertiary which is around 80 million years. So we know that we have grasses present for at least 80 million years without being in the fossil record. No grasses, no pollen...no nothing but it was there. So I think it is not out of the realm of possiblity that grasses could have been around much earlier and not left any record just as it was during the 80 million years that we have evidence of.
remember that if you want grasses in the precambrian, you need at least vascular plants in the precambrian, then we need the flowering plants in the precambrian, and we don't see any evidence of either.You could but then you would have to have some support to suggest it. Eighty million years is a very long time to have grasses in existance and have no record of it. So it is not so difficult to surmise that the possiblity is there for them to be around at least 80 million years or more earlier without record as well.
precambrian polleniverous insects?I'm still looking for that article I'll try again tonight.
Oncedeceived said:There are two things that I think need to be clarified.
1. My hypothesis is not anti-evolution.
2. My hypothesis is my viewpoint based on certain scientific data. My hypothesis is not "science" in itself. What I mean is that Creation is not a Science, it the act of God which we now look back on.
jlerollin said:i have only just heard of the cambrian explosion
Oncedeceived said:4. Why do suppose that grasses could have been present for at least 125 million years without being found in the fossil record?
caravelair said:i thought the article you posted said grasses were found 125 million years AGO, meaning they were missing between 70 mya and 125mya, so they would be absent for 125 - 70 = 55my, not 125my. is this right, or did i read it wrong?
Jet Black said:no, direct evidence of grass has only been found as long ago as 70 million years. the point about the grass found in the dinosaur dung, is that it suggests that grasses were already diverse at that point, since there were already phytoliths from quite advanced grass types, and so grasses may have evolved around 100 million years ago.
It's still rather a strain saying that they were around in the precambrian, becuse at least two levels of taxonomic groups have not been found that far back, and there is not enough genetic separation between them to even hint at precambrian grasses.
yes. there are a few different dates on the possible oldest grasses based on those discoveries - 30-50 million years.caravelair said:still confused. if they evolved 100my ago, and were directly found 70mya, then they were only absent from the fossil record for 30my... right?
yes, not just angiosperms, but all the spermatophytes.wouldn't absence of pollen in the fossil record indicate an absence of angiosperms (including grasses)?
indeed - and the argument that grasses were around in the precambrian is really stretching it, since it basically means that we can't have found any pollen or vascular plant remains for hundreds of millions of years, even though they were supposedly there. It's the same as with cows. by the argument that Oncedecieved is using to suggest that there were precambrian grasses, one could argue also for precambrian cows. Just say that coincidentally, for hundreds of millions of years, we found no therapsids or mammals, and then suddenly we start finding therapsids, and then later we start finding mammals. Not only does she have to explain why no vascular plants have been found for such a long time, she also has to explain why, when we do start finding them, do we find the primitive gymnosperms first, followed by more advanced gymnosperms, followed by primitive angiosperms, then followed by the more advanced angiosperms, and then followed by grasses. It seems pretty bizarre to suggest that all these plants lived together for hundreds of millions of years without any being found, and then when we do find them, they all start popping out of the cracks in the order expected by evolution. It makes one wonder why, when there are perfectly good vascular plants around, that the Rhyniophyta, the Polyphodiophyta and the Pinophyta spread so rapidly and became dominant for so long (again in the same order as expected through evolution)i'm guessing that the absence in the fossil record we are talking about might not have had an absence of pollen, since we might not be able to tell that any pollen we find comes from grasses specifically.
Jet Black said:yes. there are a few different dates on the possible oldest grasses based on those discoveries - 30-50 million years.
yes, not just angiosperms, but all the spermatophytes.
indeed - and the argument that grasses were around in the precambrian is really stretching it, since it basically means that we can't have found any pollen or vascular plant remains for hundreds of millions of years, even though they were supposedly there.
It's the same as with cows. by the argument that Oncedecieved is using to suggest that there were precambrian grasses, one could argue also for precambrian cows.
Just say that coincidentally, for hundreds of millions of years, we found no therapsids or mammals, and then suddenly we start finding therapsids, and then later we start finding mammals. Not only does she have to explain why no vascular plants have been found for such a long time, she also has to explain why, when we do start finding them, do we find the primitive gymnosperms first, followed by more advanced gymnosperms, followed by primitive angiosperms, then followed by the more advanced angiosperms, and then followed by grasses. It seems pretty bizarre to suggest that all these plants lived together for hundreds of millions of years without any being found, and then when we do find them, they all start popping out of the cracks in the order expected by evolution. It makes one wonder why, when there are perfectly good vascular plants around, that the Rhyniophyta, the Polyphodiophyta and the Pinophyta spread so rapidly and became dominant for so long (again in the same order as expected through evolution)
jlerollin said:we all know the answer no where! we still have snails today! which means that there is no evolutionary evidence in the fossil record for my teacher to tell me that snails evolved they were here in the cambrian! they have no history prior to the cambrian showing the developmental pathway. therfore the theory of evolution for the evolution of snails from the common ancestor has no basis in the fossil record! it is the multiplication of this argument over every cambrian body plan that kind of does it for those who believe the complexity of multicellular organisms like the snail and the octopus was not and could not be the result of random mutation of the dna in a single cell over millions of years. there is nothing in the foissil record to to drive scientists to that conclusion.
JohnR7 said:So are you suggesting that shells appeared rather quickly with little of any predecessor and only slight changes took place after they first appeared?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?