The Incredible Shrinking Timeline

_{September 15, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction.

Fossil Reptilian Tracks

[BTW, let’s remember that the Darwinian objection to an absence of intermediate forms is the imperfection of the fossil record, with the difficulty of ‘soft-tissue’ fossilizing as a partial reason. But here we’re talking fossil footracks, which would seem even harder to form, and yet they’re found!]

Professor Mike Benton offers this:

“As it is, the new footprint evidence suggests a more dramatic pattern of replacement, where the sprawling animals that dominated Late Permian ecosystems nearly all died out, and the new groups that evolved after the crisis were upright. Any competitive interactions were compressed into a short period of time.”

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Ah, yes, the incredible shrinking timeline for the Cambrian Explosion, the Reptilian Explosion and the Mammalian Explosion (This last one has been coming out over the last year or so, and now we’re seeing the Reptilian Explosion come to the fore). Let’s hear it for Darwinian ‘gradualism’. When will these guys ever give up?!? Behe, in his Edge of Evolution, documents that it has taken 10^16 to 10^20 replication events (progeny) of the eukaryotic malarial parasite for it to come up with a two amino acid change as a way of resisting cholorquinone. Assuming one year/generation for the reptiles, this meant evolutionists before had 20-30 million generations for ‘something’ to happen. And now? Darwinism is hopeless to explain these new discoveries. And, yet, they persist. Scientific faith is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Comments

Can anyone say he knows and understands this: Nothingness can exist. In my simple mind, these two terms are incompatible. Nothingness, isn't that just another way of saying 'nothing'? Can we just invent a concept that we name 'nothingness', and make it real by claiming it exist? Existence - to me it is the negation of nothingness. I can say "I am nothing", but that doesn't make it true. I don't understand QM. Can anyone here with a hand over his heart say he understands QM? All right, then you may tell us: is it known, has it been determined that quantum fluctuations were not before the known universe started, the Big Bang? I'd like to learn about the research into the world prior to the big-bang. That sentence is meaningless. What could possibly be before time and space? it seems to me that event the term 'before' become meaningless in that context. I don't know, who do? If there's a before, wouldn't that also mean we could ask 'how long before', as if time existed 'before'. I am afraid this subject is beyond comprehension for most of us - it certainly is beyond mine When we study the history of Einstein and how he made his discoveries, isn't it apparent that he saw things that nobody else could see? It took some time before the world accepted relativity? Very few of us are "einsteins".Cabal_{September 21, 2009
September
09
Sep
21
21
2009
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

----Daffaxial; “But as we have just established, there is no “nothing,” and the rule “something cannot come from nothing” has no referent and is therefore unintelligible at the quantum level. A theory of the origin of the universe cannot be in violation of an unintelligible or inapplicable “law.” That is a pretty remarkable position to take. A universe can just pop into existence because the law of causation is incomprehensible on the grounds that the concept of nothing is meaningless since there is no such thing as nothing. Let’s return to some semblance of sanity. [A] Something cannot come from nothing. [B] Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Ask anyone who has no dog in the fight to compare your convoluted formulation to mine and decide which one seems reasonable and which one does not.StephenB_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Rithcie {172]:
The first true mammals appeared in the late Triassic, and were present throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous.
I misspoke. The first extant mammalian lines appeared suddenly. This still doesn't resolve the problems for Darwinian theory. In fact, it makes it worse, because the same authors say that this rise had nothing to do with K/T extinction, but happened 10-15 million years afterwards. Here's an article on it. BTW, your last post demonstrates that you've come here as a troll. Why the deceit?PaV_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

—Ritchie: “A fair point, I’ll grant you. Virtual particles pop into and out of existence from the subatomic vacuum, which is itself not ‘nothing’. But baring that in mind, you really have to admit that true ‘nothingness’ in the way imagine it does not really exist.” Granted, nothingness doesn’t exist now. We cannot say that, however, with respect to the way things were before the big bang. —"I hope we can agree that when it comes to the ultimate origin of the universe, there are only two possibilities: an infinite regress of causes, or some ‘first cause’ which either has no cause, for at least cannot be explained in terms of earlier causes.” Sure. ----“If the first is correct, then the search for causes would be never-ending.” You bet. ----“ If the second is correct, then we already have an excellent candidate for the position of ‘first cause’ – the subatomic void! We already know it is real, so its existence is not a subject of speculation. If you are determined to find some uncaused cause, then why not this? Why add on a totally speculative, phenonimally unlikely, completely unnecessary intelligent designer? It is less about my being determined to find an uncaused cause and more about being compelled by reason to assert it. We already know that infinite regress is out, as you suggested, and that leaves the uncaused cause as our only second choice. We both recognize the fact that there is no third. So, I submit the issue is this: What must the uncaused cause be like? Can it be a material “law?” No. Matter is inextricably linked to the empirical world, which is always changing. Thus, a material law is a self-contradictory proposition, since a law is something that is stable and unchanging, while matter is always changing. The laws that regulate matter must, therefore, always transcend matter. Can it be some other kind of impersonal law? No. An impersonal law cannot decide to create or not create. If it is a law, it must do what it does. To create, the agent or cause must choose to create. A quantum void cannot make that choice. Just as the law that regulates matter must transcend matter, the cause that informs the law must transcend the law. Put another way, matter [space,time,energy] depends on law to regulate it, and law depends on the causeless cause to inform it. We can work our way through it. [A] Whatever begins to exist must have a cause, [B] The universe exists, [C] Therefore, the universe had a cause. So, what kind of a cause could this be? Obviously, because of the problem of infinite regress, it must be a causeless cause-----but what else? It must be supernatural since it created time and space. It must be self existent because it cannot depend on anything or anyone else. It must be immaterial and timeless because it created matter, time, and space, all of which began to exist. It must be singular, because two self-existent creators is a contradiction in terms. It must be personal, because only a personal agent can choose to create or not create.StephenB_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Hi PaV, Your emphasis pertains to drug resistance in general. White makes it clear that, when it comes to chloroquine resistance, multiple genes must be accounted. Your parenthetical addition makes no sense. Bottom line: the number Behe bases his book on - 10^20 - has little or nothing to do with the frequency of point mutation in a particular protein. Whatever the limits of evolutionary change are, this number is of no relevance. I'm curious, PaV - who gave you this quote? Care to tell us who added the reference to Vaparimil?Arthur Hunt_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Arthur Hunt [134]: Here's a fuller quote from the article:
The genetic events that confer antimalarial drug resistance (while retaining parasite viability) are spontaneous and rare and are thought to be independent of the drug used. They are mutations in or changes in the copy number of genes encoding or relating to the drug’s parasite target or influx/efflux pumps that affect intraparasitic concentrations of the drug (Table 1). A single genetic event may be all that is required, or multiple unlinked events may be necessary (epistasis). As the probability of multigenic resistance arising is the product of the individual component probabilities, this is a significantly rarer event. P. falciparum parasites from Southeast Asia have been shown to have an increased propensity to develop drug resistance (12). Chloroquine resistance in P. falciparum may be multigenic and is initially conferred by mutations in a gene encoding a transporter (PfCRT) (13). In the presence of PfCRT mutations, mutations in a second transporter (PfMDR1) modulate the level of resistance in vitro, but the role of PfMDR1 mutations in determining the therapeutic response following chloroquine treatment remains unclear (13). At least one other as-yet unidentified gene is thought to be involved.[This last sentence probably refers to Vaparimil.] Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years (14). This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 1020 parasite multiplications. The single point mutations in the gene encoding cytochrome b (cytB), which confer atovaquone resistance, or in the gene encoding dihydrofolate reductase (dhfr), which confer pyrimethamine resistance, have a per-parasite probability of arising de novo of approximately 1 in 1012 parasite multiplications (5). To put this in context, an adult with approximately 2% parasitemia has 10^12 parasites in his or her body. But in the laboratory, much higher mutation rates than 1 in every 10^12 are recorded (12).
Would you like to comment on what I emphasized and added?PaV_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

A fix of the link immediately above: https://uncommondescent.com/religion/and-there-you-have-it/#comment-333199Diffaxial_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Ritchie @ 172:
Virtual particles pop into and out of existence from the subatomic vacuum, which is itself not ‘nothing’. But baring that in mind, you really have to admit that true ‘nothingness’ in the way imagine it does not really exist.
Indeed. The concept of "nothing," which we derive from our everyday experience with macroscopic objects, has no referent at the quantum level. I made a similar observation on another thread: The best example of somethings coming from nothings are pairs of virtual particles emerging from the quantum vacuum. Your response has been that a quantum vacuum isn’t “nothing,” and that as a something it provides the necessary conditions for the emergence of such particles. But I see problems with this rejoinder I find it very problematic to refer to the quantum vacuum as a “necessary condition,” because it isn’t conditional at all. The quantum vacuum is omnipresent, and cannot be present in one instance and not in another, and therefore give rise to fluctuations in one instance but not another. Further, the fact that the quantum vacuum isn’t conditional, and hence is omnipresent, amounts to the statement that “nothing” has no referent at the quantum level. The quantum vacuum precludes “nothing.” Therefore the entire argument that “something cannot come from nothing” becomes unintelligible at the quantum level because, at that level, there is no “nothing.” The question then becomes, “what can emerge from the quantum vacuum?” One response is that virtual particles can emerge from the quantum vacuum due to the uncertainty principle, a fact that is amply empirically confirmed. Another answer that remains theoretical is, “a quantum singularity that gave rise to the universe” may emerge as a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. You may respond that this reflects “something coming from nothing” and is therefore irrational. But as we have just established, there is no “nothing,” and the rule “something cannot come from nothing” has no referent and is therefore unintelligible at the quantum level. A theory of the origin of the universe cannot be in violation of an unintelligible or inapplicable “law.” (A slightly buffed excerpt from https://uncommondescent.com/religion/and-there-you-have-it/#comment-333199)Diffaxial_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

PaV [from 170] "It NOW looks like the first mammals appeared all at the same time." I have no idea why you accept such a ludicrous assertion. The first true mammals appeared in the late Triassic, and were present throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous. They themselves came from a group of mammal-like reptiles called Therapsids, who first appeared near the beginning of the Permian. Look up Morganucodon watsoni, Gondwanadon tapani, and Cynodont as examples of such creatures. The assertion they all appeared suddenly together (I assume you mean in the last 65 million years) is ridiculous. "Of course not. There NEVER is ANYTHING incompatible with the theory of evolution. That’s the problem. It’s unfalsifiable." Nonsense. The theory of evolution is perfectly falsifiable. It it were not true, we would not expect to find family ancestry when we examine gene sequences. The fossil record would be jumbled up, rather than reveal a steady increase in complexity of organisms throughout the ages. Animals would not demonstrate inherited features, such as the mammalian hand (all mammals have exactly the same bones in their hand, though they have been altered to different degrees). All sorts of animals may have been evenly distributed across the world rather than clustered into niches along with similar fellows. If any of these were the case, it would be disasterous for the theory of evolution. But none of these are the case. It's not that evolution is unfalsifiable, it's that it perfectly fits the evidence. Which means it's probably true.Ritchie_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

StephenB [from 169} "A quantum void is not nothing and quantum particles do not come out of nothing." A fair point, I'll grant you. Virtual particles pop into and out of existence from the subatomic vacuum, which is itself not 'nothing'. But baring that in mind, you really have to admit that true 'nothingness' in the way imagine it does not really exist. "The designer need not have begun to exist. The designer can be eternal and self existent." I hope we can agree that when it comes to the ultimate origin of the universe, there are only two possibilities: an infinite regress of causes, or some 'first cause' which either has no cause, for at least cannot be explained in terms of earlier causes. If the first is correct, then the search for causes would be never-ending. If the second is correct, then we already have an excellent candidate for the position of 'first cause' - the subatomic void! We already know it is real, so its existence is not a subject of speculation. If you are determined to find some uncaused cause, then why not this? Why add on a totally speculative, phenonimally unlikely, completely unnecessary intelligent designer?Ritchie_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Ritchie [151]:
We see exactly the same pattern in the ‘mammalian explosion’. Mammaliformes (”almost mammals”) and primitive mammals had existed throughout almost the entire reign of the dinosaurs, but they could never compete with the established, dominant dinosaurs. Then we see a mass extinction which wipes out the dinosaurs, and all of a sudden the stage is clear for the survivors (including the mammals) to step forward and establish a new dominant group, with the ‘explosion’ in species that goes with it.
This WAS standard orthodoxy. It's changing. It NOW looks like the first mammals appeared all at the same time. I don't remember the article, but it came out earlier this year.
No mystery. And perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution.
Of course not. There NEVER is ANYTHING incompatible with the theory of evolution. That's the problem. It's unfalsifiable. [But, of course, there really are problems; Darwinists simply wave them away.]PaV_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

---Ritchie: "Firstly, some things DO pop into existence uncaused. Virtual particles, for instance. They are not speculative, their effects have been observed and measured." The conditions in the quantum void are a cause of the appearance of the particles [one might also include the activities of the scientist in the lab]. Thus, neither the appearance nor the existence of the particles uncaused. A quantum void is not nothing and quantum particles do not come out of nothing. ---"But more importantly, even if it was true that everything had to have a cause, hypothesizing an intelligent designer simply does not solve that problem, since it then needs a cause itself, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, etc. Everything does not necessarily need to have a cause. The law of causality states that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The designer need not have begun to exist. The designer can be eternal and self existent.StephenB_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Art Hunt, T-URF 13 is not useful. I am pretty sure that Behe is talking about USEFUL structures. That is what he states in his book anyway- building USEFUL structures- ya know something that will actuall help the organism survive and reproduce. However it does fit in perfectly with Behe's premise that random effects tend to damage things.Joseph_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker:
Yet in the single-cell protists Choanoflagellida, we see cell-type differentiation during the life cycle. For example, Proterospongia choanojuncta not only has the capability for cell-type-differentiation, it also undergoes a colonial phase during part of its life cycle. In other words, in one species we have the two main requirements for a metazoan.
Exactly what "evolved"?Joseph_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

StephenB & CannuckianYankee If you'll forgive my butting in... Firstly, some things DO pop into existence uncaused. Virtual particles, for instance. They are not speculative, their effects have been observed and measured. But more importantly, even if it was true that everything had to have a cause, hypothesizing an intelligent designer simply does not solve that problem, since it then needs a cause itself, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, etc. So we are left with an infinite regression, or else the chain has to stop SOMEWHERE. And if we can conceive of that, if we can say that there was a first uncaused cause, then why not make the Big Bang that first uncaused cause, instead of adding a completely unnecessary and totally speculative extra link to the beginning of the chain in the form of an intelligent designer?Ritchie_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

---Mr. Nakashima: "My concerns about causality have collapsed to the core concepts “Czech supermodel”, “ring”, and “fiance”! I hear you. First things first.StephenB_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

"There is nothing trivial about that." Not unless things just pop into existence. Otherwise the causality principle is necessarily true. Interesting how some people render trivial what is necessary for existence.CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "Only if you’re an incompatibilist." Free will exists and intelligent agents can influence their own desiny. ---Rob: "So yes, I accept that the causality principle, as you define it, is trivially true." Trivially true? Well, then, you agree that the universe, which began to exist, had a prior cause and that the existence of quantum particles are not uncaused. There is nothing trivial about that.StephenB_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Obviously, I do not take the position of determinism, which would eliminate human free will. Try again.
Only if you're an incompatibilist. So which of the following is not your position? 1) If sufficient conditions for an event are present, then the event is guaranteed to occur. 2) If an event occurred, then sufficient conditions were present. 3) Therefore, every event that occurs was guaranteed by existing conditions to occur. 4) That's determinism.
Do you accept the principle of causality which holds that anything that begins to exist must have a prior cause?
I answered that question long ago, as I did in the comment to which you just responded: "But considering that 'Nothing prevents E from occurring' is a necessary condition for any conceivable event E, there is no conceivable scenario that is precluded by the rule." So yes, I accept that the causality principle, as you define it, is trivially true.R0b_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Mr StephenB et al, Sorry, I will have to pick up our conversation wherever it is in a weeks time. My concerns about causality have collapsed to the core concepts "Czech supermodel", "ring", and "fiance"! ;) Work might also send me off to Malaysia, then it could be longer.Nakashima_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Readers might want to look back at Art Hunts comment (#134, delayed due to moderation), in which he expanded on my original comment regarding Behe's 10^20 "calculation".Dave Wisker_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

joseph complains "We see colonies forming today and not one has the appearance of becoming a metazoan." Yet in the single-cell protists Choanoflagellida, we see cell-type differentiation during the life cycle. For example, Proterospongia choanojuncta not only has the capability for cell-type-differentiation, it also undergoes a colonial phase during part of its life cycle. In other words, in one species we have the two main requirements for a metazoan. Yet joseph continues to insist there is no evidence that the transition is even possible. Codswallop, sez me.Dave Wisker_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden [from 157] "I know this is the smokescreen evolution provides as an answer, but it isn’t really an answer when you blow away the smoke." Can you be more specific?Ritchie_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Ritchie,
This is precisely the problem the theory of evolution solves – life gradually becomes more complex from simple beginnings, so there is no egg-bird-egg conundrum to solve.
I know this is the smokescreen evolution provides as an answer, but it isn't really an answer when you blow away the smoke.Clive Hayden_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Joseph [from 152 and 153] "IOW snails and crabs are what need explaining." That's what I was doing... "I am looking for science, not speculations." How is it speculative? We can observe the effect parasites have on host creatures. We can see endosymbiosis for ourselves. This is not speculation, this is evidence. "Also I am aware of endosymbiosis. And there isn’t anything there that indicates single-cell to metazoan." How can you say that? The idea makes perfect sense, based on observational evidence and extrapolation. "The best you can provide is what Dave Wisker already did- tat is the hopes that a colony can get you advanced cellular differentiation." Pardon? "However that doesn’t say anything about upright bipedal motion- as in HOW it arose." I'm going to go out on a limb here and put it down to random mutation and natural selection. "When you change bone structure, ie length, you also have to change where the muscle attaches." Ummm, no you don't. You just have to change the length of it. "Do you even realize what has to change to get upright bipedal motion?" From an ape? Not a lot really, though you apparently think otherwise. Apes can easily stand on two legs, and some can walk short distances upright (though this comes easier to some than others). All that's really needed is a slight tilt in the pelvic bone and a few small modifications to the legs and feet. It's not like we're trying to get from a true quadruped to a biped. "Without the genetics you don’t have any way to test your premise." Nonsense. For one thing, I'm not saying the genetics is not there, I just don't know it. For another, you are dismissing fossil evidence just because I have no genetic evidence to accompany it. Which is a ridiculous tacit for dismissing evidence. "The theory of evolution has a wealth of supporting evidence? That is except for the genetic evidence, which is still missing. That is the genetic evidence which wiould show the transformations required are even possible." I'm still not getting my head around exactly what you think is missing. We pass on our genes to our children. That, I hope, is established fact, it is not? Sometimes random mutations happen in our genes. That too, I hope, is established fact, is it not? Mutations in genes have physical effects on the organism that carries the genes. That is established fact, is it not?Ritchie_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

-----Rob: "Adding to the confusion is the fact that StephenB sometimes takes the position of strict determinism, but this position is not entailed by his causality rule. Obviously, I do not take the position of determinism, which would eliminate human free will. Try again. By the way, speaking of eliminating confusion, obfuscation, and distractions, would you care to take on the questions alluded to on this current thread. Do you accept the principle of causality which holds that anything that begins to exist must have a prior cause? If so, please explain why you do not apply it to universes and quantum events. If not, then the questions for Nakashima would apply to you as well. If you can dispense with causality in two or three contexts, why not twenty or thiry or a million? If a universe or a quantum particle can pop into existence without a cause—why cannot anything pop into existence without a cause? If some events are caused and others are not, how do you distinguish one from the other? If you appeal to quantum mechanics as your main justification for abandoning the principle of causality at the micro level, why do you also abandon causality at the macro level as an explanation for the beginning of the universe?StephenB_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden [from 150] "We do not have to postulate in infinite regress of designers, for logically there only has to be one, not any before it." Then where did that designer come from? " The acorn comes from a full-grown oak." A perfect example of the problem. Where did the oak come from if not from an acorn itself? "And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginnings, is it not reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside sequence altogether?" This is precisely the problem the theory of evoution solves - life gradually becomes more complex from simple beginnings, so there is no egg-bird-egg conundrum to solve.Ritchie_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Ritchie, The theory of evolution has a wealth of supporting evidence? That is except for the genetic evidence, which is still missing. That is the genetic evidence which wiould show the transformations required are even possible.Joseph_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Ritchie:
For example, some species of snail are parasitized by flukes, which make the snail grow an extra-think shell.
Snails are metazoans. IOW snails and crabs are what need explaining.
So to recap, the transition from single-celled organism to organisms of many cooperating cells may be explained thus: perhaps we all relics of ancient parasitic mergers.
I am looking for science, not speculations. Also I am aware of endosymbiosis. And there isn't anything there that indicates single-cell to metazoan. The best you can provide is what Dave Wisker already did- tat is the hopes that a colony can get you advanced cellular differentiation.
Well,Australopithecus Afarensis is our earliest discovered ancestor since humans split from other apes.
That is the asserttion anyway. However that doesn't say anything about upright bipedal motion- as in HOW it arose. There is also some question about how they actually walked and got around. When you change bone structure, ie length, you also have to change where the muscle attaches. Otherwise the limb doesn't function properly. Do you even realize what has to change to get upright bipedal motion? “I am interested in the genetics- what DNA sequence(s) were involved?”
I don’t know. But that doesn’t undermine the evidence I have given above.
Without the genetics you don't have any way to test your premise.Joseph_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Pav [from 147] Scientists are human beings. Any particular one is capable of having ideas which are both good and bad. That is why science emphatically does not simply take everything authority figure say merely on trust. Every hypothesis must be rigorously tested to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is utterly ridiculous to 'state that Darwin believed something which has been shown to be false, therefore EVERYTHING he believed was false'. The fact is that the theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of critical scientific testing, and has amassed a vast wealth of supporting evidence. It does not matter in the slightest if he also believed in a timeless world, fairies, or that he was the Queen of Sheba. Also, I have great difficulty in understanding your problem with 'explosions'. They make sense to me. They generally follow mass extinctions! Once that has happened, the survivors pretty much have free reign of the planet. Take this 'reptilian explosion' you alluded to. It followed the Permian mass extinction, the greatest mass extinction our planet has ever seen. Only a tiny percentage of species survived. A single species, Lystrosaurus, a straddling reptile, survived, and utterly dominated Southern Pangaea in the Early Triassic. And then, something new - the very first dinosaurus, small reptiles who adopted an 'upright' stance and could walk on their hind legs. In a world where entire ecosytems had been destroyed and were effectively starting over, they were there practically at the start and could indeed 'explode' to take over this new world. We see exactly the same pattern in the 'mammalian explosion'. Mammaliformes ("almost mammals") and primitive mammals had existed throughout almost the entire reign of the dinosaurs, but they could never compete with the established, dominant dinosaurs. Then we see a mass extinction which wipes out the dinosaurs, and all of a sudden the stage is clear for the survivors (including the mammals) to step forward and establish a new dominant group, with the 'explosion' in species that goes with it. No mystery. And perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution.Ritchie_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply