It's common today that normal cells produce eggs or sperm that have half of genetics in each cell.
What in the world is a "normal cell"??? Do your stomach cells produce egg and sperm? Do your skin cells produce egg and sperm? Do your muscle cells produce egg and sperm?
When somatic cells, the cells that make up your body, divide they produce new cells with full diploid genomes.
But let me ask you this: do you believe that different species have evolved meiosis seperately?
Given the distribution and uniqueness of meiosis in eukaryotes it tends to point to common ancestry. We can find meiosis and sexual reproduction even in single celled organisms.
Pray tell, how does "without any evolutionary history" amount to a nested hierarchy?
All living species fit into a nested hierarchy. That is without looking at a single fossil, transitional or otherwise. We don't need a single fossil in order to evidence a nested hierarchy. The fact that you don't understand these basic facts says a lot.
There is a MASSIVE gap between ediacaran and cambrian radiations that evolution can't (sensibly) explain away ... the predicted evolutionary links between ediacaran and cambrian are virtually non-existent ...
Prove to us that they are non-existent. Show us every single fossil that is in the Earth right now.
Yes. They look just planted without evolutionary history. But looks are deceiving as is your taking the quote out of context. That's the way things looked but that is not the way it was if you had bothered to quote further.
How did I take that quote "out of context"? The quote describes what the fossil record reveals - what the article says further on doesn't alter the quoted description of the fossil record.
If you know how evolution works, choose one evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe how it happened.
Sure. Here you go:
By comparing the genomes of chimps and humans we can find the differences between the genomes. As I have demonstrated in this thread, the differences are due to mutations and the commonalities are due to common descent. We can also measure sequence conservation throughout each genome which evidences natural selection.
So the physical differences between humans and chimps is due to evolutionary mechanisms, and we can even see the transitional steps in the fossil record.
Or, better, go to your local university, take a semester of biology, evolution or genetics. When you're done come back here and we'll discuss what you learned.
That should be a requirement for all creationists:
They need to learn everything they can about science (which includes evolution) and also about creationism. That way they will have some chance to understand our answers to their "questions", but also they will be able to see where creationism is lying to them and thus avoid being deceived.
The same applies to us normals too.
An example of that is the autobiographical story of a former YEC, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, PhD Biology:
quote:Based at North Carolina State University, Schweitzer is currently researching Molecular Paleontology, molecular diagenesis and taphonomy, evolution of physiological and reproductive strategies in dinosaurs and their bird descendants, and astrobiology.
She published her findings that raises questions about fossilization and which creationists continue to lie about.
I mentioned her to candle2 in Message 1014 where I embedded the video of Aron Ra's interview with her:
In that interview she described her journey from YEC to practicing scientist. As a young-earth creationist intent on learning the evidence so that she could disprove "evolution" (ie, whatever bullshit bogeyman strawman that creationists push), she enrolled in Dr. Jack Horner's class (BTW, Michael Crichton based Dr Alan Grant in Jurassic Park on Dr. Jack Horner, who was a technical advisor for the movie).
Not only did she learn that evidence she wanted to learn more about, but she also discovered lots and lots of evidence that the creationists had never told her about and would continue to hide from her as they insist that that evidence does not exist. IOW, she discovered that the creationists had been lying to her and her fellow creationists all along. And now she has learned from what they do with her own research how much creationists lie about their scientific sources.
BTW, in that video she states outright that the reason she accepts evolution is because of the data -- the data that Dredge keeps trying to deny. And she is still a Bible-believing Christian, just no longer a YEC (again, because of the data that creationists don't want her nor you to ever see).
Another example of how creationists' and religious fanatics' abject ignorance of science keeps them from understanding the truth comes from a fundamentalist conspiracy theory site from the 90's, Cutting Edge Ministries at http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1260.cfm (link broken):
quote:
TITLE: EXACT ILLUMINIST TIMETABLE FOR PRODUCING ANTICHRIST HAS BEEN REVEALED TO CUTTING EDGE MINISTRIES!
Subtitle: We have been given the exact timetable for producing Antichrist, including the exact date he is planned to arise. We have also been given the precise occult thinking by which this timetable was produced. If God does not act to prevent the Illuminati from carrying out this Plan, Antichrist will likely arise as the Illuminati has scheduled.
. . .
JUPITER NOT A PLANET, BUT AN UNLIT GASEOUS BODY
It seems pretty outrageous to think of Jupiter becoming a star. Some investigation of the makeup of Jupiter on some scientific web sites is in order, especially because of Cooper's bold statement that Jupiter has a makeup "exactly" like that of our Sun. Here are a few comments about Jupiter from the NASA web site located at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/Jovian.html#king (link broken)
quote:
"Jupiter contains two-thirds of the planetary mass of the solar system. In composition it resembles a small star. Electrical activity in Jupiter is so strong that it pours billions of watts into Earth's own magnetic field every day. No planet has greater influence on its neighbors. Most of its mass is hydrogen and helium --- it does not burn like the Sun. Models of star formation suggest that Jupiter's mass is only about one-eightieth of the mass needed for ignition, which occurs due to heating from internal gravitational collapse. Jupiter's smaller size leaves its center too cool to ignite."
quote:
"(Jupiter does NOT produce energy by nuclear fusion as in the Sun; it is much too small and hence its interior is too cool to ignite nuclear reactions.) Jupiter is just about as large in diameter as a gas planet can be. If more material were to be added, it would be compressed by gravity such that the overall radius would increase only slightly. A star can be larger only because of its internal (nuclear) heat source. (But Jupiter would have to be at least 80 times more massive to become a star.) "
These comments from NASA, and this astronomy research group, seem to be clear that Jupiter could never ignite on its own. We then posed the following question to the Arizona Space Exploration and Astronomy research group "Could Jupiter be ignited by a huge nuclear device ?" The answer we got back was:
quote:
"Jupiter could not be ignited. The central temperature is the determining factor. A self-gravitating mass of hydrogen 20% the size of the Sun, or smaller, does not have a high enough central temperature to induce nuclear fusion. Temperature equates to average kinetic energy of particles; it takes a very high temperature to get even a small fraction of hydrogen ions to overcome their electrical repulsion and fuse." [Guy Smiley dated 2/2/99]
We were still not sure exactly why Jupiter could not ignite, especially if it were hit with the huge atomic explosion of 1,750 Megatons, as occult sources are saying will occur when the 49.7 pounds of plutonium in the spacecraft Galileo is turned into the planet on December 6. After all, the largest thermonuclear explosion on earth was the Russian test of only 100 megatons in 1961. The answer we received from a Christian scientist, Dr. Kent Hovind, [
Dinosaur Adventure Land
] explained the science to us so we could understand. In the NASA excerpt, quoted above, we learned that "most" of the mass of Jupiter is Hydrogen and Helium, a most explosive mix, if it is mixed with sufficient oxygen in order to burn this mixture. Dr. Hovind says Jupiter does not contain enough oxygen in order to sustain the type of continuous burning that would be needed to produce a star. Now, we understand and now it all makes sense. No matter how large the initial explosion might be, the lack of sufficient quantities of oxygen would snuff out any resulting fire rather quickly.
Stars shine through the fusion reaction in their cores which requires very high temperatures that results from the gravitational collapse of their mass. As a result, if a ball of gas containing hydrogen is not massive enough to trigger that fusion reaction, it cannot become a star. In my 1971 astronomy class, we were taught that Jupiter is about one-tenth of the mass needed to become a star.
Even though that was the answer to their question, those fundies were so ignorant and scientifically illiterate that they couldn't recognize that those were the right answers. So they instead fell for Mr. Kent Hovind's equally scientifically illiterate "answer" that stars burn like a candle and so would need oxygen for the bonfire on its surface. Absolutely wrong, but in their stupidity that stupid "answer" was all that they could understand. Just think of what a difference it would have made if they had ever bothered to take a science class.
BTW, Galileo plunged into Jupiter's crushing atmosphere on Sept. 21, 2003. Of course, there was no explosion since its two reactors, each containing 17 lb of plutonium (or 34 lb combined, not the 49.7 lb claimed), were designed to minimize the effects of any event such as a crash, an explosion, fire, reentry into the atmosphere. More information can be found at Galileo (spacecraft) - Wikipedia.
Stupid is as stupid does. And a large part of the cure for creationist stupidity is education.
The quote describes what the fossil record reveals
No. It doesn't.
The quote is out of context. Your source lied to you and without checking, you lied to us. Cite the rest of the paragraph, Altar Boy or your jesus-meat crackers will give you heartburn for breaking a commandment.
Then show me all of the species that lived in the pre-Cambrian and show us how they can not be ancestors of what is in the Cambrian.
I'm not claiming that pre-C biota can not be ancestors of C biota. I'm claiming that the massive gap in morphology and function between pre-C and C biota is not consistent with the theory of evolution.
Where is the vast number of transitional fossils that are required to bridge the huge gap?
Dredge writes:
How can all those missing links between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian possibly form a nested hierarchy?
Taq writes:
You don't need transitional fossils in order to produce a nested hierarchy.
You need similarities to form a nested hierarchy. I can't see how the profound dissimilarities between pre-C biota and C biota can form a nested hierarchy.
Here is a brief description of pre-C verses C biota:
"A series of dark, craggy pinnacles rises 80 metres above the grassy plains of Namibia. The peaks call to mind something ancient — the burial mounds of past civilizations or the tips of vast pyramids buried by the ages. The stone formations are indeed monuments of a faded empire, but not from anything hewn by human hands. They are pinnacle reefs, built by cyanobacteria on the shallow sea floor 543 million years ago, during a time known as the Ediacaran period. The ancient world occupied by these reefs was truly alien. The oceans held so little oxygen that modern fish would quickly founder and die there. A gooey mat of microbes covered the sea floor at the time, and on that blanket lived a variety of enigmatic animals whose bodies resembled thin, quilted pillows. Most were stationary, but a few meandered blindly over the slime, grazing on the microbes. Animal life at this point was simple, and there were no predators. But an evolutionary storm would soon upend this quiet world.
Within several million years, this simple ecosystem would disappear, and give way to a world ruled by highly mobile animals that sported modern anatomical features. The Cambrian explosion, as it is called, produced arthropods with legs and compound eyes, worms with feathery gills and swift predators that could crush prey in tooth-rimmed jaws."
a mostly-sessile "gooey mat of microbes" and "animals that resembled thin, quilted pillows" (pre-Cambrian)
to
"highly mobile animals that sported modern anatomical features ... arthropods with legs and compound eyes, worms with feathery gills and swift predators that could crush prey in tooth-rimmed jaws" (Cambrian)
possibly form a nested hierarchy? It's like saying a kettle and a Ferrari from a nested hierarchy, is it not?
™ Version 4.2
(1)