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.
Interesting --- since just this morning, I considered changing it to Lurch.
But I'll stick with Alfred E. Neuman (no offense).
According to some, for instance Nicholas Butterfield (Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes, Paleobiology, vol. 26, p. 386, 2000). (I'm not a biologist, but I am an academic, so finding this stuff is just a bit of Googling for me).
Humans didn't evolve from chimps but you are right otherwise. There are a lot of fossils.What you said here is a different problem than the Cambrian Explosion. Cambrian explosion is hard to study because the lack of fossils. But the evolution from chimp to human left A LOT of fossils, and should be the easiest one to find proof.
What are you referring to? And where would be this "right" position?You can see the result by yourself, evolutionist could not even put the Neanderthals at the right position of classification.
Not a single piece that I know of. There's ample evidence, though, that we are derived from a common ancestor with chimps. (I think you've heard about human chromosome 2 and ERVs about a thousand times in this forum alone...)There are A LOT of "evidences" to support that human derived from chimp.
First, what you've presented is a hypothesis, not a theory. Second, perhaps the evidence rejects it but I think precious few relevant scientists hold it, too.There are also A LOT of "evidences" to reject that "theory".
That's a big claim, y'know.No matter it is the Cambrian explosion or the origin of human, evolution has hard time to solidly prove itself in ANT case.
Minus a few exceptions --- right?But for the record, I wasn't offended ---
There are? You should publish them and overturn science as we know it. I don't know of any evidence showing that we came from chimps, which is why science doesn't say that we did.There are A LOT of "evidences" to support that human derived from chimp.
It's hard for me to express what I believe the ultimate purpose of the universe is without getting more into theology, but it's also hard for me to avoid. Like I've said, I started out with the Bible first and came into what understanding I have of science relatively late in my life. It's important for me to try to integrate the two. I don't know how to strictly talk about nature because for me God is *always* involved, whether as the originator of the process or as directing it throughout. I won't say that it's impossible, just difficult. I know the theology. I still have much to learn about the science.
Again, in my view, God is more than a "god of the gaps". To me he IS the explanation, not just something to stick into what we don't understand. But it's important to learn about the evidence of what has happened that's presented in front of us. The Bible doesn't speak of everything. As one of the New Testament writers said (paraphrased), "the heavens speak forth the glory of God". How can we understand what they speak if we don't bother opening the book of nature to read it? The more we learn about nature, the more we understand what its author meant to communicate.
I don't want to purposefully offend those of us here who think differently. What good would that do? Unfortunately, it seems that some of us, myself included, offend and get offended without that being the purpose. I would like to converse with consol, but my take on things seems to be so opposite to his that I don't know where to begin.
Thank you ---If you already see the possibility without much science, you are blessed.
John 20:29 said:Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Even you are trying hard to reconcile science and God, eventually, you can not and nobody can. No matter how much science you can learn, ultimately it still takes faith to accept God. For Christian, the purpose of knowing more science is "to see higher possibility" that the Bible does say the right thing. If you already see the possibility without much science, you are blessed.
The Bible, of course, isn't compatible with my early theism. But as a theist, I couldn't reconcile much of the Bible with reality, and viewed it as a faulty record of human thought about God. I suppose, even though I thought myself a Christian, I was more of a Deist.
I wonder if oxygen and hard parts were connected (I'm sure this isn't my own idea but I don't know where I got it). Hard shells can cover much of an animal's body surface, so less surface is available for gas exchange. That would mean things like a clam's or a trilobite's shell (and the accompanying ecological opportunities) aren't possible till there's a minimum level of oxygen in the water (and/or the animal has a gill to absorb it more efficiently). Though this hypothesis doesn't cover small hard parts such as spines and stings.
My problem with sex is that AFAIK the Cambrian explosion is an explosion of (multicellular) animal life. I don't know if there was a similar radiation in other eukaryotes at the same time but I've never heard of any. And clearly sex predates animals because most eukaryotes have it. (It could be that sex evolved more than once, though*. Then the question would be whether it caused similar explosions every time it appeared in a group of creatures.)
My favourite idea is a combination of ecology and development (which also allows a role for oxygen and hard parts). The boom in diversity could be due to a boom in complexity; once a threshold level of genetic complexity was present in development (eg. a number of front-to-back "compartments" of gene expression), all sorts of features - heads, sense organs, muscles, appendages etc. - could evolve relatively easily (this sort of compartmentation means that one compartment or group of compartments can be modified independently of the others. You could develop legs near the bottom of your sides without sprouting random legs all over your body).
Of course with more available body parts you have more ecological options. You could be a better burrower, an active predator, a sophisticated filter feeder etc. You could also get into massive arms races. More diversity --> more ecological interactions --> more pressure to evolve, and there's your positive feedback loop until the ecospace is full to bursting.
Development could also help explain why no (or few**) phyla appeared after the CE. When relatively complex bodies first originated there would be little competition in the realm of big, complex and motile things. You could tweak your basic developmental program, be not-so-great and still get along until you evolved a better version.
Once, however, a few lineages hit on a good program and radiated into the available niches, new (and likely not-so-great) experiments would've found it much harder to survive. After each mass extinction, there still would be complex survivors with a head start. Furthermore, these survivors would've built additional complexity on their basic phylum-specific developmental plans since the Cambrian, so it would've been even more difficult for them to evolve a new body plan that actually works (try to rebuild a foundation with a house on top of it).
I would have to know more about development and body plans and stuff to know if this is really a good idea or just sounds fancy but at the moment I rather like it. All this, of course, assuming "phyla" represent something real about animals and aren't just random lineages like all others. These authors seem to think they do (and they say it's the developmental genetic "compartment maps", rather than the "body plan" per se, that's phylum-specific. I took their word for it.)
---
*I honestly don't know what the evidence says about that. I don't know how conserved the process of meiosis is, for example, and whether the differences between various creatures indicate descent with modification or convergent evolution. (And I'm damn lazy and won't do the reading right now)
**IIRC there's at least one phylum that's thought to have originated after the Cambrian but I can't recall which one it was.
Humans didn't evolve from chimps but you are right otherwise. There are a lot of fossils. What are you referring to? And where would be this "right" position? Not a single piece that I know of. There's ample evidence, though, that we are derived from a common ancestor with chimps. (I think you've heard about human chromosome 2 and ERVs about a thousand times in this forum alone...) First, what you've presented is a hypothesis, not a theory. Second, perhaps the evidence rejects it but I think precious few relevant scientists hold it, too.
That's a big claim, y'know.
There are? You should publish them and overturn science as we know it. I don't know of any evidence showing that we came from chimps, which is why science doesn't say that we did.
If, however, you're referring to the evidence of common descent of all the great apes, then yes, there's evidence of that. If you find it weak, then please please please explain ERVs and Human Chromosome #2. There have been whole threads on these and no creationist has yet actually addressed the issue: how do these things make any sense from a creationist perspective (or any other than the ToE, for that matter)?
So, what God has done according to nature and what God has done according to the Bible cannot be reconciled? Interesting. If the universe that God has created doesn't turn around and give testament to Him, then there's something wrong.
I assume English is not your first language, which could explain the confusion. "Reconciling" science and God simply means finding no contradiction between the two; it has nothing to do with using science to prove/demonstrate God.Even you are trying hard to reconcile science and God, eventually, you can not and nobody can. No matter how much science you can learn, ultimately it still takes faith to accept God.
For Christian, the purpose of knowing more science is "to see higher possibility" that the Bible does say the right thing.
Again, you can see the possibility of God without any science or with all the science in the world. Two different epistemological realms.If you already see the possibility without much science, you are blessed.
Then please post these scientific facts so that we can be amazed.If the Bible recorded 100 statements related to science, people usually focused on the toughest 5% of descriptions, which are mostly recorded in the first 15 chapters of Genesis. In fact, if you take a look of other 95% science related issues (most people do not even know they exist), they are descriptions of scientific facts not known to us until the most recent 100 years. If you care to take a look of any such example, it is simply amazing.
That's like a defense lawyer saying "I don't know anything about this "forensic evidence" you keep going on about but it's just ONE issue. Forget the 'DNA' and the 'ballistics' and the 'spectral analysis' -- the detective can't even tell us what colored underwear my client was wearing on the day of the murder!"I don't know a thing on what you said.
But that is ONE issue. There are at least 99 others.
Ah. So your "99 issues" are "things that scientists haven't yet completely and incontrovertibly explained in simple words". Gotcha. Unfortunately [voice=morbo]science does not work that way[/voice]. There will always be things science hasn't work out -- that does NOT invalidate what has been worked out.The one I favored (not I know much) is the difference on "intelligence". Is that also a biological issue? Which gene is responsible for that?
If the Bible recorded 100 statements related to science, people usually focused on the toughest 5% of descriptions, which are mostly recorded in the first 15 chapters of Genesis. In fact, if you take a look of other 95% science related issues (most people do not even know they exist), they are descriptions of scientific facts not known to us until the most recent 100 years. If you care to take a look of any such example, it is simply amazing.
The Cambrian explosion issue is hard because it involves several major aspects, such as biology, chemistry, and, of course, the controls of physics/astronomy are hidden. Nevertheless, one of the major hurdle is the TIME constrain. All the processes had to be done in a geologically very short period of time.
is beyond me, but par for the course for Juve spouting off about things he knows nothing about with that air of authority.geologically very short period of time
I assume English is not your first language, which could explain the confusion. "Reconciling" science and God simply means finding no contradiction between the two; it has nothing to do with using science to prove/demonstrate God.
So yes, actually, you can reconcile them. Science is agnostic -- it makes no theological claims.
You are correct that it takes faith to accept God because God is not a scientific concept -- it has to be taken on faith, pretty much by definition.
The point of science is to prove the Bible right? What just happened to nobody being able to "reconcile" them? Sorry, but you're not making much sense here. Most Christian/theistic scientists I know would say that the point of science is to understand God's creation.
Again, you can see the possibility of God without any science or with all the science in the world. Two different epistemological realms.
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?