Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

I knew when I posted that paragraph it was a bit muddled. Let me try again.

Kingdoms are broad groupings that encompass a large number of descendant species, but have to exclude the characteristics of other, similarly broad groups (the other kingdoms). It's unlikely that such a new lifeform would evolve without being consumed to extinction before it had much chance to diversify, be discovered and be classified. Simply put, we're unlikely to find an autotrophic eukaryotic lifeform that isn't a plant nor any of the other eukaryotic kingdoms.

What's more likely to happen, as you can see by reading the Wiki entry on Kingdoms, is a reclassification of beings from one kingdom into two or three or three or four kingdoms being reclassified into two different domains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

Why would one think that it unlikely that any new life form would evolve without being consumed to extinction? First, the Cambrian Era fossils show not the gradual simple to complex life forms that Darwin predicted. Even though some fossils have been found in the pre-Cambrian they do not explain the extensive and complex life forms found in the Cambrian.




(Oooops, I see exds's post from earlier covers it better than I did)[/quote]

 

[Chalnoth]

First, the Cambrian Era fossils show not the gradual simple to complex life forms that Darwin predicted.

Yes, that is exactly what they show.

Even though some fossils have been found in the pre-Cambrian they do not explain the extensive and complex life forms found in the Cambrian.

If you'd read the least bit about it, you find that it was mostly the development of shells that caused the fossils to appear. The ancestors of those animals are still there, they just didn't fossilize nearly as well. Now that we have a much more extensive fossil collection, we have found the precursors of most if not all of the major phyla.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Yes, that is exactly what they show.


If you'd read the least bit about it, you find that it was mostly the development of shells that caused the fossils to appear. The ancestors of those animals are still there, they just didn't fossilize nearly as well. Now that we have a much more extensive fossil collection, we have found the precursors of most if not all of the major phyla.

Hey Chal, thats interesting I did not know that. Could you point me to your source or in the right direction where I might find information on this? A link or a name or something.
Much appreciated.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, that is exactly what they show.


If you'd read the least bit about it, you find that it was mostly the development of shells that caused the fossils to appear. The ancestors of those animals are still there, they just didn't fossilize nearly as well. Now that we have a much more extensive fossil collection, we have found the precursors of most if not all of the major phyla.

Chalnoth, You assume way to much in your worldview and of other people.

What we find is an explosion of life forms in a mere 10s of million years. To claim that is what Darwin and evolution predicted is completely false. You may note that there a soft bodied fossils in the record so to claim that the soft bodies are to blame is not conclusive with the evidence.

 

[Nick665]

What we find is an explosion of life forms in a mere 10s of million years.

I have a really good theory on how that happened.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey Chal, thats interesting I did not know that. Could you point me to your source or in the right direction where I might find information on this? A link or a name or something.
Much appreciated.

Yes, I would like to know that source for this as well considering that I have never read or seen anything that substantiates this claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have a really good theory on how that happened.

Theories are great, do you have evidence to substantiate the theory.

 

[Nick665]

The evidence is the explosion of life forms in a mere 10s of million years.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Chalnoth, You assume way to much in your worldview and of other people.

What we find is an explosion of life forms in a mere 10s of million years.

Funny thing, seeing a creationist refer to 10s of millions of years as "mere."

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You may note that there a soft bodied fossils in the record so to claim that the soft bodies are to blame is not conclusive with the evidence.

Oh and oncede,

I just thought id point out that he said

"The ancestors of those animals are still there, they just didn't fossilize nearly as well" That is to say, shells fossilize much better/often.

So it is not that soft bodies can't fossilize under any cercomstance, it is merely that it would be a much rarer occurance.

 

[dad]

Ah yes. Thanks.

Maybe a better term is 'functions not yet understood fully dna'?

Some indications are that it may be just that..

"A study in the journal Science suggests that social behaviour may be shaped by differences in the length of seemingly non-functional DNA, sometimes referred to as junk DNA. The finding by Larry Young and Elizabeth Hammock at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University and the Atlanta-based Center for Behavioral Neuroscience has implications for understanding human social behaviour and disorders, such as autism. "

'Junk DNA' shapes social behaviour | The Human Genome


"
Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as non-functional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. It is also impossible to rule out protein expression based solely on sequence information, as DNA messages can be altered by, e.g. editing the transcribed RNA, skipping parts of the sequence, etc. Moreover, the inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions pseudogenes may have (see below).
Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence that Alu (a SINE) sequences are involved in gene regulation, such as in enhancing and silencing gene activity, or can act as a receptor-binding site—this is surely a precedent for the functionality of other types of pseudogenes. Future studies on the one million Alu copies scattered in the human genome should reveal further regulatory functions of these elements.
The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself additional evidence for their activity. This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations. Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."


Pseudogenes - Are they non-functional?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh and oncede,

I just thought id point out that he said

"The ancestors of those animals are still there, they just didn't fossilize nearly as well" That is to say, shells fossilize much better/often.

So it is not that soft bodies can't fossilize under any cercomstance, it is merely that it would be a much rarer occurance.

I know exiledo, you don't have to translate for me. I understand what he saying and it still is inconsistent with the fossil record. That is why this period is called the Cambrian explosion:

Stephen Gould:

Although interesting and portentous events have occurred since, from the flowering of dinosaurs to the origin of human consciousness, we do not exaggerate greatly in stating that the subsequent history of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes established during the Cambrian explosion within five million years. Three billion years of unicellularity, followed by five million years of intense creativity and then capped by more than 500 million years of variation on set anatomical themes can scarcely be read as a predictable, inexorable or continuous trend toward progress or increasing complexity.

Source

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe a better term is 'functions not yet understood fully dna'?

Some indications are that it may be just that..

"A study in the journal Science suggests that social behaviour may be shaped by differences in the length of seemingly non-functional DNA, sometimes referred to as junk DNA. The finding by Larry Young and Elizabeth Hammock at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University and the Atlanta-based Center for Behavioral Neuroscience has implications for understanding human social behaviour and disorders, such as autism. "

'Junk DNA' shapes social behaviour | The Human Genome

Another:

Now researchers from Princeton University and Indiana University who have been studying the genome of a pond organism have found that junk DNA may not be so junky after all. They have discovered that DNA sequences from regions of what had been viewed as the "dispensable genome" are actually performing functions that are central for the organism. They have concluded that the genes spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome that is necessary for the organism to grow.

Source:




"
Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as non-functional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. It is also impossible to rule out protein expression based solely on sequence information, as DNA messages can be altered by, e.g. editing the transcribed RNA, skipping parts of the sequence, etc. Moreover, the inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions pseudogenes may have (see below).
Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence that Alu (a SINE) sequences are involved in gene regulation, such as in enhancing and silencing gene activity, or can act as a receptor-binding site—this is surely a precedent for the functionality of other types of pseudogenes. Future studies on the one million Alu copies scattered in the human genome should reveal further regulatory functions of these elements.
The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself additional evidence for their activity. This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations. Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."


Pseudogenes - Are they non-functional?[/quote]

 

[Astridhere]

Ah yes. Thanks.

It appears no one has taken on any my replies yesterday re mankind and apes, or deer and early whales existing together, so I will leave this now as I find the science behind the fossil record supports creation rather than evolution as demonstrated.

I see Oncedeceived has already posted some good information on junk DNA. Here is more on Eukaryotes.


Furthermore, the present lack of significant amounts of nucleomorph secondary DNA confirms that selection can readily eliminate functionless nuclear DNA, refuting ‘selfish’ and ‘junk’ theories of secondary DNA. Cryptomonad nuclear DNA content varied 12–fold: as in other eukaryotes, larger cells have extra DNA, which is almost certainly secondary DNA positively selected for a volume–related function. The skeletal DNA theory explains why nuclear genome size increases with cell volume and, using new evidence on nucleomorph gene functions, why nucleomorph genomes do not. (my bold)
Eukaryotic non-coding DNA is functional: evidence from the differential scaling of cryptomonad genomes

And this one on prokaryotes

Background: Prior to the current genomic era it was suggested that the number of protein-coding genes that an organism made use of was a valid measure of its complexity. It is now clear, however, that major incongruities exist and that there is only a weak relationship between biological complexity and the number of protein coding genes. For example, using the protein-coding gene number as a basis for evaluating biological complexity would make urochordates and insects less complex than nematodes, and humans less complex than rice.

Conclusions: We suggest that the observed noncoding DNA increases and compositional patterns are primarily a function of increased information content. It is therefore possible that introns, intergenic sequences, repeat elements, and genomic DNA previously regarded as genetically inert may be far more important to the evolution and functional repertoire of complex organisms than has been previously appreciated.
Research | NonCodingDNA

This one below speaks to the functionality of ERVs
Comparative and functional Genomics : Endogenous retroviruses and human evolution

This one speaks to ERV's that miraculously 'evolved' into essential genetic material. How Could ERVS Create a Species-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner? Evolutionists do not know the answer. However, creationists know the answer in that similarities are a part of the creation and a demonstration of the reuse of great ideas, designs and functions invented by the one Creator.
Who is Your Creator: Endogenous Retroviruses


In the end evolutionists are going to recant more and more as the evidence continues to support the creationist predictions in relation to junk DNA.



So not only does the whale, deer, human & ape fossil, the remarkable divergence of the chimp/human Y chromosome,provide evidence in support of creation, so does the evidence in relation to junk DNA & ERVs. The evidence always ends up supporting creation. Evolutionists require many theories to turn clear and convincing evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery.

Creationists have always asserted that God would have no reason to place a whole heap of junk in the genome. Evolutionists used to run this into creationists, and then came the fall of evolution again with scientists having to recant their stance, it seems, while continuing to validate creationist assertions.

 

[Chalnoth]

Hey Chal, thats interesting I did not know that. Could you point me to your source or in the right direction where I might find information on this? A link or a name or something.
Much appreciated.

Well, unfortunately I only know a few bits and pieces I've gathered over the years. But my impression came from reading this another article about this hypothesis for the Cambrian Explosion:
The eyes have it | COSMOS magazine

I should mention that the development of shells themselves may also have increased the diversity of the Cambrian fauna, because shells potentially may have allowed for much more complicated body plans.

 

[Chalnoth]

It appears no one has taken on any my replies yesterday re mankind and apes, or deer and early whales existing together, so I will leave this now as I find the science behind the fossil record supports creation rather than evolution as demonstrated.

So, you're just going to ignore USincognito's in-depth responses?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, unfortunately I only know a few bits and pieces I've gathered over the years. But my impression came from reading this another article about this hypothesis for the Cambrian Explosion:
The eyes have it | COSMOS magazine

I should mention that the development of shells themselves may also have increased the diversity of the Cambrian fauna, because shells potentially may have allowed for much more complicated body plans.

The big question has long been: why? What exactly lit the Cambrian fuse? My own theory – known as the Light Switch Theory – has been that the development of vision was the spark that started it all: once this capability arose, it allowed predators to identify prey – and, naturally, those predators did very well indeed.
This triggered an arms race (or, if you prefer, a defence race): detecting predators became rather important to survival. Thus, vision became a dominant force in evolution and resulted in the eyes we have today.


The problem with this theory, eyes were already on the scene. Eyes were already complex and in different life forms at the time. It wasn't as if eyes, just developed.

World’s OLDEST Eyes and FIRST ever fossil from Cambrian Period DISCOVERED.

​

I didn’t know that one’s eyes can be preserved for such a lengthy period; a massive half a billion years!. These pairs of eyes must have gotten into such a unique situtation for it to exist to this day.

A 515 million year old fossilised compound eye has been discovered in rocks from an archaeology dig on Kangaroo Island. From a period when it was thought creatures only had very basic vision, an eye similar to the complexity of a modern day arthropod, is one of the greatest fossils finds in modern history.
“There’s about 3000 little lenses all lined up with larger ones in the centre and smaller ones to the periphery,” SA Museum palaeontologist Dr Jim Gehling told 891 Breakfast.
“The only animals that we know of today that do that are arthropods, things like crayfish and crabs and your regular house flies.”
The fossil is believed to come from the Cambrian era, from 540 to 510 million years ago, when the ‘first real explosion of life’ evolved.
“This is a creature which probably had quite good vision for a marine creature.”
The fossil is the first of its kind from the Cambrian period to be discovered in the world.
The eye fossil was not discovered until Dr Gehling’s colleague Dr Jim Jago showed him a rock that contained a different type of fossil that the eye was discovered.
“He said ‘have a look at this thing here’.”
Once both doctors agreed the item was an eye, the team from the SA Museum then discovered several more examples from the Kangaroo Island site.
“We now have six really good specimens, and lots of fragmentary specimens, and there is probably a lot more to come.”
“This is one of the greatest places in the world to actually study the earliest marine animals.

Source

 

[Chalnoth]

The big question has long been: why? What exactly lit the Cambrian fuse? My own theory – known as the Light Switch Theory – has been that the development of vision was the spark that started it all: once this capability arose, it allowed predators to identify prey – and, naturally, those predators did very well indeed.
This triggered an arms race (or, if you prefer, a defence race): detecting predators became rather important to survival. Thus, vision became a dominant force in evolution and resulted in the eyes we have today.


The problem with this theory, eyes were already on the scene. Eyes were already complex and in different life forms at the time. It wasn't as if eyes, just developed.

World’s OLDEST Eyes and FIRST ever fossil from Cambrian Period DISCOVERED.

You clearly didn't read the article.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You clearly didn't read the article.

Well yes, I did.

The fact that this eye was already present in a complete and complex form would not account for the "drive" behind the event itself. The eye is already developed and there are no precursors in the life forms in the strata. If the theory was to be accepted one would have to have the precursors with varying developing eye evolution to where it would have "exploded" into the diversity shown in the Cambrian.

 

[USincognito]

It appears no one has taken on any my replies yesterday re mankind and apes, or deer and early whales existing together, so I will leave this now as I find the science behind the fossil record supports creation rather than evolution as demonstrated.

Why should we? I've told you repeatedly that the photo of Salem you kept posting claming it showed Lucy had no eyebrow ridges was wrong and yet you kept reposting it. I told you repeatedly that the photo of a modern H. sapiens skeleton you kept posting and claiming was Lucy was not her and last night conclusively showed you why you were wrong. Why should we take a single word you say seriously when you continue to wallow in error?

Perhaps when you have the intellectual honesty to admit you don't know what you're talking about and own up to the fact that you erroniously kept posting photos of things that were not what you claimed them to be we might be bothered to respond to you again.