|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
"Recent research"? You mean just another untestable theoretical fantasy dreamed up by atheists who can't accept the implications of the non-existence of fossil ancestors leading up to the Cambrian explosion.
No, we mean the fossil evidence that actually exists and an explanation for it. There was precursor life to the Cambrian species. They were the link between earlier life and Cambrian forms.
An untestable theory ...
Except that it is tested virtually every day in paleontological research. And it is supported by new fossil discoveries.
... doesn't even qualify as science - it's just a worthless story.
According to someone who has literally no background in science, yes? That's convincing. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Of course there are - I never said there weren't. But unfortunately for your evolution belief system, there are no fossils that show evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian life-forms and all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
And there is an explanation for this, your denial notwithstanding. There are in fact several lines of evidence explaining why this happened, along with the condition of the fossil record of over half a billion years ago.
Please be advised that, by any standard, the Bible qualifies an authentic, historical document.
And it tells you all about the Cambrian explosion. That's nice. Got a reference, chapter and verse? And where does the Bible tell you that the planet is billions of years old and life a bit less? And the fossil record is not about history, but pre-history, so a 'historical' codument is really irrelevant.
I'm sure your homophobic language does not please the Great False god of Equality that you atheists invented.
He was probably just using language that he thought you would understand. Nuance is really lost on you guys, isn't it? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
So organisms went from soft-bodies to hard-bodied with no fossil evidence?
That IS the evidence. And it happened over an unimaginable amount of time (in human terms) and over almost all of the extant phyla. The fossil record slowly and apparently became dominated by organisms with hard body parts. This happened along with other major shifts in the geochemistry of the planet during the Proterozoic Era.
Dream on.
If you are talking about 'dreaming' constrained by evidence, fine with me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Why is it “superior” to the Biblical genealogies?
Well, I'm sure that you've made up your mind.
Wait . is it because it claims men descended from gods and that Japanese Emperors are gods?
I knew it! No, but thanks once again for showing a remarkable talent for missing the point. We should take that into account when dealing with trolls.
If so, Yes, you make a very valid point - genealogies based on such fantasies are completely trustworthy!
In your world, it appears to be so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Molluscs, sponges, annelids and echinoderms may all have pre-Cambrian representatives (but all are controversial cases where the identification of the fossils is not clear).
Which, I might add, is exactly what we would expect of transitional fossils. It's not clear exactly what they are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Just google “Ediacaran life-forms” . any mug can do it.
I have. The difference is that I have actually read the articles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Beats me. We will never know when the fossil record is complete.
But you do seem to know that it is complete, no? That is one reason why you can so glibly say that there are no transitional fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The Ediacaran fossils were a “precursor“ to the Cambrian, but they can hardly be described as a “link” - there are no fossil links between E and C.
Okay, what came before the Ediacaran fauna? Or are you just assuming that the record is complete and we 'know' that there is nothing in between E and C. The Ediacara forms are more primitive and difficult to put into the Cambrian phyla framework, which is exactly what we would expect of transitional species.
For example, where are the links between the Ediacaran organisms (worms, sponges, barnacles, jelly fish)...
What happened to your barnacles?
... and the fish that appeared in the Cambrian? Ditto for Ediacaran life-forms and insects. My scientific explanation is that aliens took the Ediacaran creatures, seriously fiddled with their DNA and voila!...
First of all, some of these questions have been answered previously. Second, that's a great idea. Now, how have you tested it? Where is your evidence for the aliens?
welcome to new and improved creatures of the Cambrian!
Again, a great idea, but "voila" will not cut it as a mechanism.
"BSTs (Burgess Shale Types) from the latest Ediacaran Period (eg, Miaohe biota, 550 Ma) are abundantly fossiliferous with algae but completely lack animals, which are also missing from other Ediacaran windows, such as phosphate deposits (eg, Doushantuo, 560 Ma)" - Daley AC, Antcliffe JB, Drage HB, Pates S 2018. Early fossil record of Euarthropoda and the Cambrian Explosion. PNAS, 9 pp.
And the problem is?
It’s interesting how you’ve conflated “testing a theory” and “finding evidence for a theory”. I think of a “test” as confirming or proving something.
Yes it is. But more specifically, when one predicts the location of a particular transitional fossil in a certain age of rocks and the they go out and actually confirm the prediction. And besides, what better way to test a theory than use it? If it didn't work, we would be forced to accept a paradigm shift at some point, just as phlogiston had to be abandoned as an explanation.
Hence, there is no way to test what happened between Fossil A and Fossil B. All you’ve got is a gap between two different fossils, which you fill in with blind faith in evolution.
And when you did connect the dots pictures as a kid, did you have a problem going from 'dot 1' to 'dot 2'? Maybe there was something in between like a tiny horsey.
My “aliens did it” explanation can’t be tested either (although it remains the best scientific explanation).
When you have some kind of supporting evidence, please let me know. I have no problem going with the known evidence. How about you?
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion" Henry Gee, Nature (magazine), 1999.
Correct. As we have been saying all along, transitional fossils do not define lineage. I thought we'd cleared that up a long time ago.
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test” - Colin Patterson, from a letter to Luther Sunderland, 1979.
Ah, good. Another out-of-context opinion. Want any to the contrary?
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed-time story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." Henry Gee, Nature (magazine), 1999.
I think you already posted this. I know, those big words are confusing... Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
There are several so-called explanations, none of which can be tested, for course. My favorite is the “Oxygen” explanation - apparently, an increase in oxygen in the environment can turn a sponge or a worm into a fish . and in a very short period of time!
Is that what I said? And how is millions of years a short period of time?
Imo, my “aliens did it” explanation trumps all the insipid evolutionary explanations.
As I have said, that's a wonderful explanation. What is your evidence for aliens?
f I were an evolutionist confronted by the Cambrian explosion, I would stick my head in the sand of wishful thinking, pseudo-science and denial too.
Yes. If YOU were. But I'm starting to think that you are a Poe anyway.
Please consider adopting my “aliens did it” explanation - it explains the evidence so much better than dumb ol’ evolution, which is about 150 years out-of-date.
I will consider it when you show us the evidence for aliens. I think they did that on the X-Files, yes? Is that your evidence? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
It's fascinating to watch you at work. You tell us there are no links between Cambrian and Ediacaran fossils. Then in the next sentence you tell us that lots of Cambrian animal groups are found in the Ediacaran. Then to back up your claim you point us to an article arguing there are no animal fossils in the Ediacaran.
Actual science is not easy.
No wonder aliens seem the most likely explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
You should try reading the links provided.
Casual dismissal is easier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Instead of just blasting me about nothing why not try to figure out what I'm trying to say?
We've been trying that for years, Faith. It still comes out the same: your arguments make no sense and are not backed up by anything but denial and dismissal.
I AM creating an argument here although it is clear few care enough to try to follow it.
Your monkey, your circus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The best scientific explanation for the history of life is that aliens performed feats of genetic engineering. The Darwinist explanation is a nineteenth-century idea that is inadequate and outdated.
Fabulous, I love it. But I'd like to see your evidence, Mulder. And then could you tell us how this theory is applicable in practical biology?
All I want you to do is explain why is it necessary to "root" a plant you are studying to some extinct "ancestor" that supposedly existed millions of years ago - because this sounds like a complete waste of time to me.
Yes, exactly. To you... Now you just have to find someone who cares about your opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Whatever.
Yes, 'whatever'...
When you said you "know" the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bones of a reptile, you were talking nonsense.
Seriously? How do you get that? I just said that I don't "know" (your sense of the word) how it happened. I'm beginning to think you have some serious comprehension problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Yeah, right - your "evidence" is a few fossils with a gigantic gap between reptiles and mammals. That's it.
So, what have you got? Are you saying that we should ignore the data that are present?
You have no the slightest idea what so sort of environmental pressures would cause the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a mammal, nor can you begin to explain how the supposed mutations evolved in this process would confer survival advantages.
It is an explanation that fits the data, the timing and has a mechanism. What is your explanation? Nothing?
As usual, the massive holes in your tissue-thin "theory" are filled with huge doses of wishful thinking and blind faith in evolution.
So, we should just ignore the data that are present, because they do not satisfy you? Sorry, it isn't going to work that way.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024