Does evolution equal cognitive dissonance?

[JohnR7]

1) What is the Pax 6 gene and what does it have to do with the evolution of eyes?

2) Why is there so much simularity between life forms that were suppose to have evolved totally seperate from each other?

3) Why does advanced forms of life appear so suddenly in the fossel record with much simpler forms in the layer below it.?

4) Why is there massive evidence of what some considered evolution within a species but no evidence of evolution from one species to another?

5) Why is it that no one can produce even one single example of one phylum evolving into another in the same way that evolutionary change can be demonstreated within a phylum?

6) Why is it that representives of every phylum known to exist today can be found in one single layer of strata, with no phylum in any layer below that one, and no new phylum in any layer above that one.

7) How could live have evolved when the fossel record show that life "bursts" into being in a very short period of time?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

2) Why is there so much simularity between life forms that were suppose to have evolved totally seperate from each other?

It is called Convergant Evolution. This ism, put simply, why sharks dolphins and icthyosaurs all have striking similarities - despite having very different lineages. All three are marine predators- and their body form is ideal for this. However, true relationships can be clearly demonstrated by genetics and internal anatormy. This is how we know that a dolphin is first of all a mammal, and secondly most closely related to pigs and hippos (the fossil record also supports this theory).

3) Why does advanced forms of life appear so suddenly in the fossel record with much simpler forms in the layer below it.?

Somtimes adjacent layers can be separated by periods of millions of years from which there was no sedimentation in that spot. Can you give an example?

4) Why is there massive evidence of what some considered evolution within a species but no evidence of evolution from one species to another?

Not true. Several cases of speciation (one species evolving from another) have been observed in plants, animals and microbes.

5) Why is it that no one can produce even one single example of one phylum evolving into another in the same way that evolutionary change can be demonstreated within a phylum?

All known phyla, including the extinct ones, arose over 500 million years ago. There is very limited evidence from this time. There are examples of transitional forms between various phyla however.

7) How could live have evolved when the fossel record show that life "bursts" into being in a very short period of time?

If you are talking about the Cambrian Explosion as evidenced by the famous Burgess Shale (which I am going to visit it this summer) then "sudden" really means a space of 5 to 30 million years. Sudden in the geological sense.

 

[Cantuar]

What is the Pax 6 gene and what does it have to do with the evolution of eyes?

It's a gene present in many different animals and it's involved in the regulation of eye formation.

Why is there so much simularity between life forms that were suppose to have evolved totally seperate from each other?

There isn't always. In cases where different evolutionary pathways have converged on the same forms, it's often because those forms are the best way of dealing with a particular environmental challenge. There aren't many ways of flying without developing wings, whether you're dealing with birds, bats, or insects.

Why does advanced forms of life appear so suddenly in the fossel record with much simpler forms in the layer below it.

Depends what you mean by "advanced." Most advanced forms of life have close relatives in the fossil record.

Why is there massive evidence of what some considered evolution within a species but no evidence of evolution from one species to another?

This is a false statement. There's evidence of evolution between species both in the lab and in nature.

Why is it that no one can produce even one single example of one phylum evolving into another in the same way that evolutionary change can be demonstreated within a phylum?

Phyla generally split a very long time ago. However, there is evidence of transtions despite what young-earth creationists would have you believe.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html

Why is it that representives of every phylum known to exist today can be found in one single layer of strata, with no phylum in any layer below that one, and no new phylum in any layer above that one.

See Glenn Morton's article cited above.

How could live have evolved when the fossel record show that life "bursts" into being in a very short period of time?

Considering we're talking millions of years, I'd say that was an interesting new definition of "very short period of time." If a new species evolves in a small area over a (geologically) short period and then expands into a larger habitat, the transtional fossils are only going to be found in that small area, which makes it harder to find them. Hoowever, such transitionals have been found in some cases, so that claims that they don't exist are untrue.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:06 PM Cantuar said this in Post #3
It's a gene present in many different animals and it's involved in the regulation of eye formation.

How can the same gene be found in different phylum that evolved seperate from each other?

Considering we're talking millions of years

That is your opinion that we are talking about millions of years, maybe we are only talking about thousands of years. We use to hear so many stores about things that took millions of years to form, but now we know they can form themselves in months. not millions of years.

 

[gladiatrix]

Today at 10:49 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #1

1) What is the Pax 6 gene and what does it have to do with the evolution of eyes?

The compound eye of flies divulges evolutionary secrets. Good description of pax6 here.

Pax6 eye disorders described here.

3) Why does advanced forms of life appear so suddenly in the fossel record with much simpler forms in the layer below it.?


7) How could live have evolved when the fossel record show that life "bursts" into being in a very short period of time?

Time is "relative". This "suddenly" equates to millions of years. It doesn't mean "poof" (from one instant to the next, one of your God-did-it 'miracles").

4) Why is there massive evidence of what some considered evolution within a species but no evidence of evolution from one species to another?

As has already been pointed out, this above is a FALSE statement. If dogs had "suddenly" turned into cats or frogs "suddenly" turned into cows (the favorite creationists strawman of what is meant by "one species evolving into another"), that would DISPROVE evolution! So no, there are no half-frog, half-cow "transitional fossils" as demanded by Hovind et al (it doesn't matter if one is a YEC, OEC or gap creationists, they all "demand" to see such "evidence", aka the half-frog, half-cow transitional). You don't see the above because that is NOT what evolution is about and never was.

 

[Melchior]

Today at 09:48 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=708883#post708883)
That is your opinion that we are talking about millions of years, maybe we are only talking about thousands of years. We use to hear so many stores about things that took millions of years to form, but now we know they can form themselves in months. not millions of years.

Like what? And keep it to evolution as that is the topic we are on. I don't want to get into another mindless debate on canyons being formed from pyroclastic mud slides.

 

[gladiatrix]

Today at 04:48 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=708883#post708883)


That is your opinion that we are talking about millions of years, maybe we are only talking about thousands of years. We use to hear so many stores about things that took millions of years to form, but now we know they can form themselves in months. not millions of years.

I am going to assume that you mean that **** about just if scientists can create coal/gems in the lab this automatically means that it could not have happened the way geologists claim.

Just because one can make diamonds/coal in the lab in a short time does not mean that it didn't take the naturally forming ones millions of years. There is absolutely no "rule" that proclaims that a natural process is restricted to just one pathway.

 

[Morat]

How can the same gene be found in different phylum that evolved seperate from each other?

Because they didn't? Phylums represent an old speciation event. Any two given phylums share a common ancestor...albeit 600 million or so years in the past.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 05:39 PM Morat said this in Post #8


Because they didn't? Phylums represent an old speciation event. Any two given phylums share a common ancestor...albeit 600 million or so years in the past.

If that is the case then you should be able to find their common ancestor in the preceeding layer of earth. Where is this common ancestor for all phylums that share the same gene for the eyes?

 

[Cantuar]

If that is the case then you should be able to find their common ancestor in the preceeding layer of earth. Where is this common ancestor for all phylums that share the same gene for the eyes?

Until there's some way to reconstruct DNA from fossils that are millions or billions of years old or to travel in time, there's no way to tell the exact common ancestor that had a Pax gene. Since Pax genes are involed in the regulation of eyes in so many different animals, it would seem likely that any fossil showing evidence of eyes would have had a Pax gene when it was alive.

 

[lucaspa]

John, you claim to know little about biology, yet pretend that these are problems for evolution?

Today at 10:49 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #1
1) What is the Pax 6 gene and what does it have to do with the evolution of eyes?

Pax 6 is what is called a "Hox" gene.  The protein coded by the gene directs the transcription (for translation) of other genes.  The original form of Pax 6 produced a light-sensitive pigment in a single-celled organism. The descendent of that organism still exists and the Pax-6 codes for the light-sensitive pigment.

2) Why is there so much simularity between life forms that were suppose to have evolved totally seperate from each other?

Similar designs for similar design problems.  Remember, natural selection is an algorithm to get designs.  The environment sets the design problems but physics often dictates the general design solution.  As Cantaur pointed out, resistance moving thru water dictates that the shape of predators to achieve speed is such that sharks, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins have very similar shapes. That they don't have identical shapes indicates they evolved. Dolphins, for instance, use a swimming motion that is really the running motion used by 4-legged animals on land -- reflecting their ancestry.   

3) Why does advanced forms of life appear so suddenly in the fossel record with much simpler forms in the layer below it.?

You post this like it is a universal.  There are many transitional series of gradual transformation of simpler to complex.  There are explanations for the other cases:  migration from another area, the erosion of intervening strata that Cantaur mentioned, and the fact that most bedding planes represent 60,000 years.  If a mouse-sized organism would increase an average of 0.1% per generation -- too small to detect -- then in 60,000 years the animal would be the size of an elephant.  And the sedimentation process would not be able to preserve the intermediates.

4) Why is there massive evidence of what some considered evolution within a species but no evidence of evolution from one species to another?

There is plenty of evidence, both fossil and observed, of evolution from one species to another. I've posted part of that evidence many times.  Didn't you pay attention, John?

5) Why is it that no one can produce even one single example of one phylum evolving into another in the same way that evolutionary change can be demonstreated within a phylum?

Not true. The phylum of flowering plants evolved in the Cretaceous and there are intermediates. Of course, you just said that there was no evolution from one species to another, and now you say that there is demonstrated evolution within a phylum?  Does the word "consistent" mean anything to you?

6) Why is it that representives of every phylum known to exist today can be found in one single layer of strata, with no phylum in any layer below that one, and no new phylum in any layer above that one.

Because it's not true.  Most of what we call phyla first appear in the Cambrian, but as Cantaur pointed out, that is a period of 5-30 million years and are not one layer.  The explanation is simple. What are "phyla"?  A large group of species.  And how do species originate? By splitting of one species into two species.  Therefore phyla are identified by the descendents of that original species. So at the "beginning" a new "phyla" is going to be one species.  The Cambrian represents an adaptive radiation near the beginning of multicellular life, thus generating the ancestors and original members of the phyla. But as I said, the phyla of flowering plants didn't appear until the Cretaceous. 

7) How could live have evolved when the fossel record show that life "bursts" into being in a very short period of time?

Two reasons:

1. Artifact of how evolution occurs and the fossil record.  Remember, most of those sedimentary layers represent very long periods of time as measured by human lifespans.

2. Natural selection can work 10,000 to 100,000 times faster than that shown in the fossil record.  So there is no problem with the speed of evolution in the fossil record.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:48 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #4

How can the same gene be found in different phylum that evolved seperate from each other?

That is your opinion that we are talking about millions of years, maybe we are only talking about thousands of years. We use to hear so many stores about things that took millions of years to form, but now we know they can form themselves in months. not millions of years.

1. The original form of Pax-6 was present in the single-celled ancestor of all the phyla.  Now, all the multicelled phyla also have the same ancestor, and Pax-6 was also present in it.

2. Give us examples of millions of years being shortened to months.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 06:28 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #9

If that is the case then you should be able to find their common ancestor in the preceeding layer of earth. Where is this common ancestor for all phylums that share the same gene for the eyes?

It is the hard parts that fossilize. The apparent "burst" in the Cambrian represents the acquisition of shells or other hard parts in many species.

Before that all the organisms were like worms -- no parts that readily fossilize.  As I said, we have bacteria today that have homolog to Pax-6. 

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 08:46 PM lucaspa said this in Post #12 2. Give us examples of millions of years being shortened to months.

Again? Ok, but this is the third time. They use to say precious and semi precious stones took millions of years to form. Now a gemologist can crystalize them in months in his garage. In some cases no one can tell the difference between a nature made stone and a home made one. Although the home grown ones tend to have less inperfections in them and are better then the ones you find in nature.

Man may not be able to produce enough pressure to make a diamond as hard as one found in nature. But they are hard enough for industrial use to cut though whatever you want or need to cut though. Also, again they have less imperfections compared to diamonds that you find in nature. They are more clear with better facets and better color.

The cost of diamond tiped industrial saw blades as far as I know has droped from thousands of dollars down to hundreds of dollars.

 

[Morat]

Actually, geologists and anyone with a decent knowledge of gems can tell the difference between homegrown and "natural" gems. Why do you think they can't?

 

[gladiatrix]

Yesterday at 08:46 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #14



Again? Ok, but this is the third time. They use to say precious and semi precious stones took millions of years to form. Now a gemologist can crystalize them in months in his garage. In some cases no one can tell the difference between a nature made stone and a home made one. Although the home grown ones tend to have less inperfections in them and are better then the ones you find in nature.

Man may not be able to produce enough pressure to make a diamond as hard as one found in nature. But they are hard enough for industrial use to cut though whatever you want or need to cut though. Also, again they have less imperfections compared to diamonds that you find in nature. They are more clear with better facets and better color.

The cost of diamond tiped industrial saw blades as far as I know has droped from thousands of dollars down to hundreds of dollars.

Again, for the UMPTEENTH time......

John, just because scientists can create diamonds in a short time in the lab in NO WAY invalidates the geological process that took millenia. There is no such thing as there being only ONE way to reach the same result using a natural process (in this case getting the coveted form of carbon a diamond from the "common" for of carbon). As you yourself have pointed out, the diamonds created in the lab have their own signature that distinguishes them from the ones formed geologically.

The short-time lab diamond method is NOT evidence that geologically formed diamond method is wrong. The two processes give rise a diamond that is distinct in structure, a clear indication that even though each process eventually results in a diamond, they are NOT really the same thing. The bottom-line here is that we have 2 processes that give us "diamonds" (a particular form of extremely hard carbon)===>BOTH work! Get over it!

A question, suppose another scientist or group of scientists come up with an entirely new process for converting ordinary carbon into the coveted form of carbon (diamonds), would that make the laboratory process used now wrong? NO! It would simply mean that there would be 3 pathways to getting carbon into the form we most want and a all three work!

 

[Cantuar]

Ok, but this is the third time. They use to say precious and semi precious stones took millions of years to form. Now a gemologist can crystalize them in months in his garage. In some cases no one can tell the difference between a nature made stone and a home made one.

I haven't heard of any cases where it's impossible for experts with the right equipment to tell the difference. The patterns of inclusions and the types of impurities are real giveaways. The point of synthesising gems is to get something that can be sold as being equivalent in looks to the natural stones (which is what makes the crude synthetic diamonds with their nitrogen-based brown colour so unattractive even though they're perfectly real diamonds), not necessarily to replicate the conditions under which the natural stones formed.