|
On February 24 2012 09:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 03:38 rei wrote:
When Darwin was writing his book about his ideas, he came upon this conflicting facts of the oldest known layer of rocks have fossils that are much more diverse than the newer ones in comparison. For his idea to work there should be less diversity as all life originated from one(the tree of life). At the time he asked for later generations to look for more clues, for many years no one found anything on the Precambrian rocks. Originally, ppl thinks that the life forms predates the Cambrian explosion are all soft body type, and weren't preserved, but geologist were able to find microscopic fossil records in layers of rocks that predates the Cambrian explosion, and they shown the same trend, more diverse.
How can we explain this? well, could it be there were multiple origin of life, and each of these were very different from each other, the only similarities they share were the living environments. Adaptation of the most fit takes place, and instead of life diverging we have life converging dictated by the environment. Maybe that's why we have 5 different kingdoms in biology, just can't group all them shits together cause they are too different and originated not from the same life form. Anyone with any other ideas on how else to explain this ?
PS. I'm only debating evolution on the part where there is only 1 origin of life, i think there might be more than one.
The Cambrian explosion isn't a dilemma. It's not surprising to us that things become different as they spread out over the whole earth over billions of years. Also, the most obvious theorem of evolution (all extant life is from a common ancestor) isn't synonymous with saying life only originated once. Natural selection doesn't speak to how many times abiogenesis occured in history. For instance, the margins of error for molecular clocks are such that it's possible life is older than the Earth. And it's possible self-replicating molecules arose various times in the early Earth. It's logically possible that some life was seeded from space and some originated on Earth. We're also always looking for extremophiles. But your "hypothesis" isn't needed to explain the diversity of the kingdoms. The reason we still have prokaryotes even though humans exist is analogous to the joke of a creationist being rebutted: If humans came from apes, why are there still apes? - If Americans and Australians came from British people, why are there still British people (not to compare British to prokaryotes, <3 limeys)? The diversity after the Cambrian explosion is because of the huge number of niches that popped up for multicellular life once it emerged.
Multicellular life existed well before the cambrian explosion, however we have a really hard time connecting the animals that lived before it to modern animal phylums (=groups).
By the way we do not descend from any currently living ape, we just share a common ancestor that lived not that long ago (4 million years i think?) and that probably looked like an ape yes... same for procaryotes. Life is never stationnary, procaryotes are as much "evolved" as we are, they evolved for the same amount of time. The only difference is that our evolutionnary path lead us to more complexity than bacterias.
|
On February 24 2012 09:40 Jetaap wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 09:22 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2012 03:38 rei wrote:
When Darwin was writing his book about his ideas, he came upon this conflicting facts of the oldest known layer of rocks have fossils that are much more diverse than the newer ones in comparison. For his idea to work there should be less diversity as all life originated from one(the tree of life). At the time he asked for later generations to look for more clues, for many years no one found anything on the Precambrian rocks. Originally, ppl thinks that the life forms predates the Cambrian explosion are all soft body type, and weren't preserved, but geologist were able to find microscopic fossil records in layers of rocks that predates the Cambrian explosion, and they shown the same trend, more diverse.
How can we explain this? well, could it be there were multiple origin of life, and each of these were very different from each other, the only similarities they share were the living environments. Adaptation of the most fit takes place, and instead of life diverging we have life converging dictated by the environment. Maybe that's why we have 5 different kingdoms in biology, just can't group all them shits together cause they are too different and originated not from the same life form. Anyone with any other ideas on how else to explain this ?
PS. I'm only debating evolution on the part where there is only 1 origin of life, i think there might be more than one.
The Cambrian explosion isn't a dilemma. It's not surprising to us that things become different as they spread out over the whole earth over billions of years. Also, the most obvious theorem of evolution (all extant life is from a common ancestor) isn't synonymous with saying life only originated once. Natural selection doesn't speak to how many times abiogenesis occured in history. For instance, the margins of error for molecular clocks are such that it's possible life is older than the Earth. And it's possible self-replicating molecules arose various times in the early Earth. It's logically possible that some life was seeded from space and some originated on Earth. We're also always looking for extremophiles. But your "hypothesis" isn't needed to explain the diversity of the kingdoms. The reason we still have prokaryotes even though humans exist is analogous to the joke of a creationist being rebutted: If humans came from apes, why are there still apes? - If Americans and Australians came from British people, why are there still British people (not to compare British to prokaryotes, <3 limeys)? The diversity after the Cambrian explosion is because of the huge number of niches that popped up for multicellular life once it emerged. Multicellular life existed well before the cambrian explosion, however we have a really hard time connecting the animals that lived before it to modern animal phylums (=groups). By the way we do not descend from any currently living ape, we just share a common ancestor that lived not that long ago (4 million years i think?) and that probably looked like an ape yes... same for procaryotes. Life is never stationnary, procaryotes are as much "evolved" as we are, they evolved for the same amount of time. The only difference is that our evolutionnary path lead us to more complexity than bacterias.
No kidding.
|
On February 24 2012 09:17 Jetaap wrote:
Honestly it's a terrible video .. I'm watching the part 20min and 28min and... sorry i'm just facepalming >_<. Wow actually I watched it till the end and it's really some creationist propaganda...
That's really frustrating to see how deceitfull and hypocritical this video is. It's a perfect example of what you can do when you carefully select what you present, put valid arguments among bullshit and things that not accurate.
What's really annoying for me is that this video obviously push an agenda : "teach both side of evolution theory" and try to hide it. The problem that the other "side"they are pushing for is not scientific ... they try to make you think that the argument that they represented at the beggining were arguments that supported "creationism" or "inteligent design" (whatever you want to call it)... they are not.
Of course the origin of life is complex, of course we don't know everything, of course our knowledge of it changes over time. It doesn't mean that non scientific approaches to evolution are more valid >_<.
I don't know what's your opinion on that, but that's so... infurriating to think that teachers would show things like that in a classroom ...
These things make me really sad and angry at the same time ;(.
Don't leave comments like that without quoting examples from the video to support yourself if you are going to claim it is propaganda. There were no mention of creationism nor intelligent design in this video, what on earth? did i link you the wrong video? did you watched the same video i did?
Show me some examples from the video, and your interpretation of that, and we will see if your claim is valid and sound.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HZBnL.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
On February 25 2012 02:22 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 09:17 Jetaap wrote:
Honestly it's a terrible video .. I'm watching the part 20min and 28min and... sorry i'm just facepalming >_<. Wow actually I watched it till the end and it's really some creationist propaganda...
That's really frustrating to see how deceitfull and hypocritical this video is. It's a perfect example of what you can do when you carefully select what you present, put valid arguments among bullshit and things that not accurate.
What's really annoying for me is that this video obviously push an agenda : "teach both side of evolution theory" and try to hide it. The problem that the other "side"they are pushing for is not scientific ... they try to make you think that the argument that they represented at the beggining were arguments that supported "creationism" or "inteligent design" (whatever you want to call it)... they are not.
Of course the origin of life is complex, of course we don't know everything, of course our knowledge of it changes over time. It doesn't mean that non scientific approaches to evolution are more valid >_<.
I don't know what's your opinion on that, but that's so... infurriating to think that teachers would show things like that in a classroom ...
These things make me really sad and angry at the same time ;(. Don't leave comments like that without quoting examples from the video to support yourself if you are going to claim it is propaganda. There were no mention of creationism nor intelligent design in this video, what on earth? did i link you the wrong video? did you watched the same video i did? Show me some examples from the video, and your interpretation of that, and we will see if your claim is valid and sound.
Do you know who Roger DeHart is?
http://creationwiki.org/Roger_DeHart
|
On February 25 2012 02:22 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 09:17 Jetaap wrote:
Honestly it's a terrible video .. I'm watching the part 20min and 28min and... sorry i'm just facepalming >_<. Wow actually I watched it till the end and it's really some creationist propaganda...
That's really frustrating to see how deceitfull and hypocritical this video is. It's a perfect example of what you can do when you carefully select what you present, put valid arguments among bullshit and things that not accurate.
What's really annoying for me is that this video obviously push an agenda : "teach both side of evolution theory" and try to hide it. The problem that the other "side"they are pushing for is not scientific ... they try to make you think that the argument that they represented at the beggining were arguments that supported "creationism" or "inteligent design" (whatever you want to call it)... they are not.
Of course the origin of life is complex, of course we don't know everything, of course our knowledge of it changes over time. It doesn't mean that non scientific approaches to evolution are more valid >_<.
I don't know what's your opinion on that, but that's so... infurriating to think that teachers would show things like that in a classroom ...
These things make me really sad and angry at the same time ;(. Don't leave comments like that without quoting examples from the video to support yourself if you are going to claim it is propaganda. There were no mention of creationism nor intelligent design in this video, what on earth? did i link you the wrong video? did you watched the same video i did? Show me some examples from the video, and your interpretation of that, and we will see if your claim is valid and sound.
The video uses Icon of evolution which is a publication from the same people that promotes ID.
|
DaFuq? point that fingers on le science and logic, not ad hominem. show me how smart you are, debate with that video point by point, show me what you know about what they are talking about and how they are wrong. I tried, i looked into them, and skeptic about it, but i didn't take the ez way out by saying oh this is bullshit, cause it questioned something I took for granted since long ago,
|
On February 25 2012 14:24 rei wrote:
DaFuq? point that fingers on le science and logic, not ad hominem. show me how smart you are, debate with that video point by point, show me what you know about what they are talking about and how they are wrong. I tried, i looked into them, and skeptic about it, but i didn't take the ez way out by saying oh this is bullshit, cause it questioned something I took for granted since long ago,
Doesn't matter, the people behind the movie you are showing is using the above mentioned book which is a publication from the ID group.
|
hm.. it matters to the integrity of science.
|
There's no integrity in ID. There are a lot of open, interesting questions about evolution, but none of them are being asked by ID groups. Those guys are on the same level as climate "skeptics."
|
On February 25 2012 14:24 rei wrote:
DaFuq? point that fingers on le science and logic, not ad hominem. show me how smart you are, debate with that video point by point, show me what you know about what they are talking about and how they are wrong. I tried, i looked into them, and skeptic about it, but i didn't take the ez way out by saying oh this is bullshit, cause it questioned something I took for granted since long ago,
Google the Wedge Document. The Discovery Institute is a bunch of idiots dead set on wrecking the US biology curriculum so that some millennia old mythology can be taught in science classes.
The video simply sets up a bunch of strawmen and knocks them down. I'm not going to waste my time on a point by point critique of 46 minutes of propaganda, but I'll show you one clear example of bullshit in the video. Darwin's finches. Environment changes, beak sizes get larger, environment returns to previous normal, beak sizes return to previous. The video claims that this proves extrapolating from a cumulative 5% beak size increase is not warranted, but they don't highlight the point that the responsiveness of beak size in response to an environment change is in itself evidence for natural selection.
And if you want proof that this video is propaganda, you need look no further than the very next quote from the Finch section. "Maybe in a 100 million years we'll have a Galapagos elephant, but we'll need a whole lot more evidence than a couple of nutty journalists going down there and looking at finch beaks and writing their thoughts in a book." Finch to elephant? Who the hell are these fucking idiots? This betrays a deep misunderstanding of evolution and speciation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
