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.
I was not aware that the Smithsonian Insitute endored creationist websites. You really ought to take a better look at this and stop this silly rant that is based on nothing but suppostion.
Hello Mr pot!
Are you saying that the web site you linked to isn't a right wing political web site?
It certainly isn't a mainstream science site.
"The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time"
Try actually reading the article next time.
The precambrian period was billions of years where the most advanced life forms were bacteria and fauna for billions of years. Then in a very brief window of natural history most of the primary taxanomic catagories appear suddenly, fully formed, in six to ten million years.
The point was clear enough, you are comparing something with hundreds of nucleotides to cells that have millions. How you and everyone else is missing this is a mystery to me.
There is no known mechanism for writting such a specific line of DNA code. It does not happen in nature and it did not happen in real history. Bacteria does not become Eukaryote cells, it simply is a matter of suppostion not science.
Worthless is how I would describe the Single Common Ancestor Model. It has had no basis for it's universal application and yet it is an a priori fact in the minds of most scientists. In fact, worthless is an understatement.
Baloney, you didn't read the article did you? You don't realize that this was published by a reputable scientific organization and go off into this mindless rant:
Sure improved body plans would help but first they have to result from an adaptation. This kind of adaptive radiation only happens in the myths written by Darwinians.
It gives many reason supported by modern scientific literature that is cited, quoted and not some crackpot organizations either. Read the paper next time before you start jumping to ill-founded conclusions.
The Discovery Institute is an Intelligent Design website and most of the fellows are actual scientists, philosophers and mathematitions. I think you are assuming that anyone who disagrees with your point of view must be a right wing wacko.
Why don't you just go look at the site and quit writing baseless ramblings.
The Discovery Institute is an Intelligent Design website and most of the fellows are actual scientists, philosophers and mathematitions. I think you are assuming that anyone who disagrees with your point of view must be a right wing wacko.
Why don't you just go look at the site and quit writing baseless ramblings.
Not so. The Edicarian organisms of the Precambrian are an example of multicellular life preceeding the Cambrian.The precambrian period was billions of years where the most advanced life forms were bacteria and fauna for billions of years. Then in a very brief window of natural history most of the primary taxanomic catagories appear suddenly, fully formed, in six to ten million years.
Why is it worthless? Because you don't like it?Worthless is how I would describe the Single Common Ancestor Model. It has had no basis for it's universal application and yet it is an a priori fact in the minds of most scientists. In fact, worthless is an understatement.
I did, I can't think why you would think I didn't, although it is tough going reading so much wooly thinking and disingenuous hand waving.
There is nothing in it that is proof that
million years isn't long enough to produce the cambrian fauna from the sort of bilateral animals that are found in the PreCambrian.
Ys it was a burst or morphogenesis, yes, Yes 70ma is a brief amount of geological time, but why is it to short to evolve arthropods from base bilaterata?
This is simply not true, There is a
-70 ma window of opertunity to evolve from bilaterates to the Cambrian fauna. The Burgess shale has proved that the Cambrian explosion is mainly to do with preservation rather than sudden appearence., although this is still an area of research and contention in the palaeontological community.
Why you would compare sponges to arthropods is a mystery to me, sponges are not ancestral to arthropods. They are just a simple animal, They were simple in the precambrian, they are simple today.
So What?
For which you obviously have no proof beyond your own desire for it to be true.
Specific lines of DNA code are not written to solve certain problems. Changes in DNA happen through mutation and natural selection.
No one said bacteria became Eukaryotic cells, just thatthey have a common ancestor.
That is because for religious reasons you can't entertain it. Science calls common ancestry a well support theory.
This is because scientist don't entertain religious reasons to omit evidence like you do.
It doesn't appear to be a reputable scientific organisation to me, it appears to be a rightwing organisation with a political agenda.
I can tell that because I did read the article and then I scooted off around the rest of their site.
care to expand on what they are and what they are about?
They seem to be pretty cagey about it on their website.
Or alternatively after every major extinction in the whole geological record.
You say adaptive radiation is a myth, the scientific community says it has huge anounts of fossil evidence proving adaptive radiation, inluding that of the birds an mammals after the KT extinction.
Oh, who to believe, Mark or the whole scientific community, that's a toughie.
All it's examples are comparing modern evolutionary examples, because they can do nothing else. But nowhere to they adress important points like the evolution of HOX genes and the evolution of regulatory genetics.
Those along with adaptive radiation are more than enough to explain the change from simple bilaterates to the Cambrian fauna in 70 ma.
You have no proof otherwise, and if that paper was your best shot then you failed.
It doesn't matter whether you believe in long fuse Cambrian explosion or short fuse, the palaeontological evidence shows it happened, and the palaeontological evidence will increase of the coming years and bring new supporting evidence as people start to look at the large late Pre-Cambrian deposits of Siberia and China.
But sadly your views will never change becaus ethey are based on your religious dogma not on any scientific basis.
No, but this is a peer reviewed article abstract:
It seems so brief because the years before it were in the billions. Then every major phylum and class appears relativly sudden. That is why they call it an explostion, does the expression adaptive radiation ring any bells?
Especially when there is no way for them to actually adapt on that level, no matter how much time.
So as long as you have enough time anything is explainable. Wait just a minute, we are still trying to talk about how the genetic code, with sufficient specificity made this happen. Of course you don't want to talk about how, you have allready assumed that it did happen.
These retorts are so brilliant that I feel dwarfed by them.
That and the sneaking suspicion that you secretly agree with it.
Newflash! There is no selection process the changes happen at random. Now if you are expecting 1 or 0 at random and you get 18 then take a wild guess what happens next. You find another explanation or you admit you are wrong.
Nevermind that it is impossible, lets pretend that it just happens automatically.
It is a widely assumed theory, that does not make it an accurate historicial narrative.
That is right, they only reject anything that might suggest that God had something to do with it. How could I forget that as the most basic scientific answer for everything?
The link isn't to the Smithsonian, it is to the Discovery Institute, and that does seem to have a healthy crop of rightwingers onboard and a political agenda.So the Smithsonian Institute has been over run by the right wingers, we should all life in fear.
That was more of the same baseless nonesense, read the article and consider the evidence. I did want to addrress your bottom line
Sadly, you have no idea what my religious convictions are based on. There is a window into history that you are blind to and I think you must be very confused as a result. Good luck with that.
Uh, Mark, you do realize that this kind of accelerated evolution was precisely what this study was looking for, don't you? And that the authors were looking for it because that's what we expect to find as the result of positive selection for a new trait? Where a new trait might be, for example, a larger brain?Your sick of it because you don't have an answer. Let me break it down to you again since you don't like to think this through. For 310 million years a gene 118 nucleotides long has 2 substitutions, then suddenly there are 18. What would be expected is 1 or 0 so the HAR is a big issue and human specific sequences is a real problem for the assumption of a common ancestor. No demonstrated mechanism, no proof.
I don't care about ERVs because, frankly, they don't do anything.
Uh, Mark, you do realize that this kind of accelerated evolution was precisely what this study was looking for, don't you? And that the authors were looking for it because that's what we expect to find as the result of positive selection for a new trait? Where a new trait might be, for example, a larger brain?
The 0 or 1 substitutions is the number expected if selection were still favoring the old trait; that selection was what kept the region conserved. If the situation of the organism changed (because of a new environment, say, or because of a new lifestyle) and a different trait was favored, then there would be a rapid burst of change at the locus while the new trait is selected. There was always enough mutation going on to produce change in this region -- as I wrote previously, every site in the region has mutated at least several hundred times in the last 6 million years. The mutations were only kept at bay by selection against change. When the selection switches to being for change, then rapid change is the result.
You can see the same thing happening in cases where we understand the selective pressures better. Genes that affect skin pigmentation in humans (e.g. MC1R) have very little genetic variation among sub-Saharan Africans, because of the need to preserve dark skin as protection against the sun: most change is eliminated by selection, since change would be bad. In non-African populations, on the other hand, you can find lots of variation in the same genes -- a real burst of rapid evolution, in fact -- because in the northern latitudes, selection favored a different trait, namely lighter skin.
For the third choice I meant to make it 'muliple disciplines but accidentally wrote 'disciples'. Someone pointed this out earlier but it didn't register with me until just now.
It wasn't multiple disciplines they choose, it was multiple disciples. I don't know if that has some underlying signifigance but it sure has me wondering what people really find persuasive. Is the voice of the crowd or the power of the actual evidence?
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?