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.
Oncedeceived said:The scientists were amazed at the diversity and didn't feel at all that it was sparse but in fact very abundant.
Incorrect. The mammalian jaw hinge evolved before dinosaurs were on the scene.Oncedeceived said:Very true, but the therapsids developed this movement in the jaw after the dino extinction...correct? So it is not relative to my point.
Oncedeceived said:Jet, I am sorry. This new time change is just not working with me. (daylight savings time).
Baggins said:Only in as much as they didn't expect to see grass at all, and it pushed back the evolution of grass by a few million years.
5 species is not amazing diversity
Oncedeceived said:A few million years? It is more like ten million years.
The scientists felt that it was amazing:
"This is really pretty exciting," says Elizabeth A. Kellogg, an evolutionary biologist at the University of MissouriSt. Louis. If the research holds up, "it would completely revise what we've thought about the origin of grasses," she notes. "This isn't that much older than the oldest previous grass fossils, but to find such diversity at that time is surprising."
Baggins said:Sounds a bit hyperbolic, what was she expecting 1 specie?
But if I pushed back the origin of grasses another 10 million years into the Cretacious I'd be pretty pleased with myself as well.
Not forgetting that the Cretaceous lasted for 81 million years.
Still does nothing to support your notion of pre-Cretaceous grasses that left no record mind
And if one adds the plant phyla which appear after the Cambrian, one gets the following chart.
Period # total phyla which appear in period
Recent 13
Eocene 2
Cretaceous 2
Jurassic 1
Triassic 3
Carboniferous 5
Devonian 4
Silurian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4
(same note as above concerning phyla in the Vendian)
This yields Cambrian Explosion 13, Post-Cambrian 32!
Pete Harcoff said:IIRC, there were a couple phyla that appeared after the Cambrian and a number of phyla that went extinct. Plus, even if the phyla were present, most of the modern species weren't.
no, therapsids such as Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon and Probainognathus were developing this movement in the late permian and early triassic. That is before even the (dominance anyway) of the dinosaurs. By time we get to Hadrocodium in the early Jurassic, the mammalian condition of the jaw is very advanced.Oncedeceived said:Very true, but the therapsids developed this movement in the jaw after the dino extinction...correct? So it is not relative to my point.
I can see now. my apologies for jumbling them up.I was making two separate points but I feel both are relative to the discussion.
well that would kind of negate the point of suggesting that what we know as grass existed in the precambrian.Perhaps not scientifically, but if they were grass in form if not in genetic similarity, it would still be "grass". Remember I am not claiming that the Bible is a scientific journal, but only that it should not really conflict with known Scientific data. So it could remain grass...or grass like in our understanding but not be scientifically genetically linked to grass today. There are many forms that are extinct that have no known genetic links to organisms today.
but then what exactly do we mean then by grass? I wouldn't call a dolphin a fish because it bears some superficial resemblance to fish.But grass is grass according to form if nothing else. It would not be necessary for it to be scientifically named by cladistic relationship to be "grass" in form only.
Oncedeceived said:What it supports is my premise that grasses were in existance for at least 10 million years without leaving a trace. That is a long time for absence of a fossil record when we know they existed.
caravelair said:okay, so you believe that the evidence we have today doesn't falsify grasses existing 3 billion years earlier than we think. don't you agree though, that the evidence we have right now is the strongest evidence we could possibly have that they did not exist then? if not, what evidence do you feel would more strongly indicate that? and if this is the strongest evidence we can have, and it still doesn't falsify your claim, then it must be unfalsifiable, right? and if so, doesn't that render all your other predictions unfalsifiable too? because you could always play this exact same trick with any other species, or basically anything relating to the past. any time something contradicts your predictions, you can just claim unfalsifiability.
Baggins said:I imagine that there are plenty of traces but they just haven't been found or recognised yet. One of the problems is that grass itself doesn't fossilise well, the other is the inherent difficulty of matching grass pollen and seeds to plants as they aren't very differentiated. But now a fossil has been found we can probably expect to have some progress in this area and I have little doubt that more fossils will be found, once a discovery like this is made it usually stimulates more people too look and hence more fossils are found.
caravelair said:i'd like to bring up a post that has kinda been passed over...
this is my main point at this stage of the discussion. curious to know what you think about this, oncedeceived.
Oncedeceived said:Exactly, that is one of my points.
Oncedeceived said:Well first of all, I wouldn't call it a claim that I am presenting. That is more established than what I am saying here. I presented a possible scenerio, I think that is where you are getting off here. Just as for instance there is the RNA or DNA scenerio for the first life theories. See what I mean?
don't you agree though, that the evidence we have right now is the strongest evidence we could possibly have that they did not exist then? if not, what evidence do you feel would more strongly indicate that? and if this is the strongest evidence we can have, and it still doesn't falsify your claim, then it must be unfalsifiable, right? and if so, doesn't that render all your other predictions unfalsifiable too?
Jet Black said:where does this fit in with the cambrian explosion though?
Oncedeceived said:Sorry? I don't know what you are asking.
caravelair said:sort of, but i still would like you to answer the 4 questions i asked in that paragraph, so that i can better understand where you are coming from:
Jet Black said:well you were talking about the grasses in the precambrian a while back, and I wonder if this is still related or not.
Oncedeceived said:If grasses...plants were found in the pre-cambrian it does nothing to change the event of the Cambrian in my view.
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?