Re: How About THAT

unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:00 am, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Devils Advocaat wrote:
On 26 Mar, 12:48, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
.

1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.

No evolution
[snipped for brevity]
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...

Taken verbatim from your source:

"Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the
oldest single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today's
variety. That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have
not evolved. Bacteria vote no to evolution."

Now having done a little digging I found this:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-bacteria.html

Which mentions that there are at least fifteen different phyla of
bacteria, one of these being cyanobacteria.

Keep that name in mind.

"Cellularly preserved filamentous and colonial fossil
microorganisms have been discovered in bedded carbonaceous cherts
from the Early Archean Apex Basalt and Towers Formation of
northwestern Western Australia. The cell types detected suggest
that cyanobacteria, and therefore oxygen-producing
photosynthesis, may have been extant as early as 3.3 billion to
3.5 billion years ago. These fossils are among the oldest now
known from the geologic record; their discovery substantiates
previous reports of Early Archean microfossils in Warrawoona
Group strata."

There's that name again, cyanobacteria, and in fact as far as I
can tell these are the only bacterial fossils approaching the time
period stated in your source.

So tell me, why is it that the other fifteen phyla of bacteria
don't have fossils dating back that far?

Your source is in error.

There are many prokaryotes today that are different to those found
in the early fossil record.

Conclusion, evolution has occurred.

One example hardly discounts ALL of that information

No, but the fact that it's the very first example should give you
pause. Do you think it's likely he could have done something similar
with the second example, or the third, etc.?

Let's look.

"Peripatopsis: The South African "walking worm" genus of the
Onychophora family. This creature has remained unchanged since the
beginning of the Cambrian period. That is over 500 million years of
stability. Consequently the peripatopsis votes no to evolution."

The first problem with this is that Onychophora isn't a family but a
phylum, from which he has chosen a single genus.

The second is that Onychophora, strictly speaking, is unknown from
the Cambrian. Onychophora is a terrestrial group, and all Cambrian
animals are aquatic. Some might imagine that there were significant
differences betwen aquatic and terrestrial animals. This is akin to
saying that because there were vertebrates in the Cambrian and
humans today, there has been no evolution.

Third, the aquatic onychophoran relatives of the Cambrian don't
appear at the beginning of the period, but about 20 million years
later.

Fourth, those relatives are clearly not onychophorans. In addition
to being aquatic, they have various unusual features of their own --
often, for example, extensive armor -- and lack several features of
modern onychophorans. None belong to living species, or genera, or
even the extant phylum.

So now what? Are you going to say "Two examples hardly discount ALL
of that information"? Does someone have to go on to the third,
fourth, and all the way through the list, or does this sample seem
to be pointing in a clear direction?

Nope. *I* am going to say so what. If the entire list is wrong it
does not matter because you know as well as i know that there are
many species that have /not/ been acted upon by evolution for
millions of years.

Name two.

Do you claim otherwise?

Yes, I do. We wouldn't necessarily know to what extent. Ordinary
fossils only show superficial morphological differences, and then not
always in detail.


So the point of my post remains the same.

Yes. You describe something you don't understand, display disdain for
the facts, then respond with insults or simply repeating your claims
when you are shown to be wrong.


Using wf3h's criteria of "you are either pregnant or you are not";
evolution either applies to the origins of all species or it does
not.

Not necessarily. Conceivably, we could soon produce new species via
genetic engineering. But so far the process of evolution is known to
have produced every species for which we have reasonable evidence
(e.g. cetaceans, humans, diatoms) and there is no reason to think
there are any that have come about thru other means.

Do you have any evidence indicating otherwise?

Kermit

Talk to the hand K


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scientific Americans Faulty Criticism of Expelled
    ... Wallace, co-founder of Darwin's Theory, wanted Darwin to drop his ... first biologist to notice the appearance of variation within species. ... for fossils this is demonstrably false. ... the fossil record is zero evolution over time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution?
    ... Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. ... Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series. ... and the prediction turned out to be correct. ... In "The Origin Of Species", ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lets have some "Useless" math (that cant be an opinion)...
    ... from a common ancestor that was not either a bacteria, ... but a speciation that creates a species with LESS genetic ... Evolution rarely creates ... Are you claiming that geneticists are deliberately falsifying their ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question for Serious Sam: How do new species form?
    ... If evolution is not responsible for the appearance of new species, ... fossils and whale fossils in the same strata. ... The point I want to make is that the stratigraphic record shows that the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... Evolution, in the context of this newsgroup, unless otherwise qualified, ... "....Evolution postulates that new species are descended from earlier ... And based on this the rocks are dated. ... based on the rocks the fossils found in it are a certain age. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading